HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 GarageConversionRevisn
CITY CLERK
File # OffJL3J[Q]·[']j]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2005
SUBJECT;
ATTACHMENTS;
1\lC-·
l....~~
PA 03-002 City of Dublin, Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amendment
to Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Permittcd Uscs of Land; Chapter 8.76,
Off-Strcct Parking and Loading Regulations; Chapter 8.1 00, Conditional
Use Pennit and enact Chapter 8.78 Garage Conversion ofthe Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. These amendments would revoke the regulations that allow for
Garage Conversions with a Conditional Usc PemÜt and revise the procedure
to allow for Garagc Convcrsions (without a Conditional Usc Permit) in
certain residential mning districts if certain perfol111ance standards can be
mct.
Report Prepared by: Linda Ajello. Associate Planner
1.
Ordinance repealing Ordinance 4-03, which established a
conditiollal use pel111it procedure for Garage Conversions.
Option I - Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to crcatc a
new ministerial process for Garage Conversions based on
perfomJance standards.
Option 2 - Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate
the conditional use pennit process for Garage Conversions and not
adopt a new garage conversion ordinancc, as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
City of Dub tin Ordinance No. 4-03 Amendment to Chapter 8.12,
Zoning Districts and Permitted Uscs of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-
Street Parking and Loading Regulatiolls; and Chapter 8.100,
Conditional Use Pel111it of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance adopted on
April 1, 2003.
PlamÜng Commission Resolution 05-056, dated October 25, 2005,
recommending that the City Council adopt tbe Ordinance repealing
Ordinance 4-03, which established a conditional use pcrmit
procedure for Garage Conversions; and to not adopt a new
Ordinance which would amend. the Zoning Ordinance to create a
new procedure based on perfol111ance standards for Garage
Conversions.
Staff Report and Minutes for City Council Meetillgs:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
COPY TO: In-House Distribution
---------------------------------------------------------------~~--------------------------------------------
Page 10f4
Cn.ÎJ
(J:\PA#\200J\OJ-Oû2 (Jarage Cunvt:rsiun\Gar'age convet'sion2005\CCSR ] ¡-IS-OS.doc
ITEM NO.
RECOMMENDATION; 1.
2.
3.
..-.IV 4.
<Ífl' 5.
\ 6.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT;
DESCRIPTION;
7.
a. Novcmbcr 19, 2002
b. March 18, 2003
c. April 1, 2003
d. July 19, 2005
Staff Report and Minutes for Planning Commission Meetings:
a. January 28, 2003
b. February 25, 2003
c. October 25, 2005
Minutes for May 3, 2005, City Council Hearing on Appcal of P A
04-036.
8.
Open Public Uearing
Receive Staff Presentation
Receive Public Testimony
Close Public Hearing
Deliberate
Waive tbe reading and introduce Ordinance (Attachment I)
repealing Ordinance 4-03 and to waive the rcading and introduce
Ordinance option I (Attachment 2), which would allow tor Garage
Convcrsions as a ministerial action or to waive the reading and
introduce option 2 (AttaclmJell! 3), which would amend the City of
Dublin Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the ability to convert garagcs to
living area in most instances.
None
At the Novembcr 19, 2002 City Council meeting, the City Council directed Staff to review an anJendment
to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. At tbat time, the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance required that each residential dwelling provide two off-street parking spaces in
an cncloscd garage. This parking requirement prevented the conversion of garages to living spaces unless
two enclosed parking spaces could be provided elsewhere on the lot.
At the City Council's direction, Staff proceeded with an amendment to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to
remove the word "enclosed" from the parking rcquircment. StaLT prepared a report and presented the
proposed amendment to the PlartlJing Commission on January 28, 2003. The Planning Commission
directed Staff to provide alternatives and studies to address the following concerns regarding the
conversion of garages to living space: 1) traffic and safety, 2) infrastructure/service impacts, 3) scope of
convcrsions, 4) aesthcties and design standards, and 5) grand-lathering.
At thc February 25,2003 Planning Commission meeting, Staff returned witb a report that addressed the
Planning Commission's conccrns and recommcndcd a Conditional Use Permit process with the Planning
Commission as the decision-making body. In order for the Planning Commission to approve a
Conditional Use Permit, certain findings would have to be made to address issues such as compatibility
with adjacent properties; adverse impacts to heaHh, safety and welfare; impacts on property or
improvements in tbe neighborhood; whether the site is physically suitable for the changes being proposed;
and, consistcncy with development regulations for the zoning district in which tbe project is located.
Additionally, Staff rccommended that a new conditional use permit I1nding be addcd for residential garage
converSIons:
Page 2 of 4
H. Architectural considerations, including the character, sca!c and quality of the design,
the architectural relationship with the site and othcr buildings, building materials and
colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elements
have been incorporated into the project and as conditions of approval in ordcr to
insure compatibility of this development with the developmellt's design concept or
theme and the charactcr of adjaccnt buildings, neighborhoods, and uses.
The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 03-04 reconunending that the City Council adopt an
Ordinance that would allow garage conversions with a conditional use penJ]it process that included the new
finding referenced abovc.
On March 18,2003 and April1, 2003, the City Council held public hearings on this item and approved
Ordinance No. 4-03 amending the Zoning Ordinance and thereby allowing for garage conversions with a
conditional use permit to be hcard by the Planning Commission.
On May 3, 2005, the City Council heard an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of a proposed
conditional use pel111it Jor a garagc conversion at 7697 Cantcrbury Lanc (PA 04-036). Bya lmanimous
vote, the City Council overturned the PlmuÜng Commission's decision, denying the conditional use
pemJit for a garage conversion at 7697 Canterbury Lane. During tbe deliberation on that appeal, the City
Council rcquested that an item be placed on a future agenda to discuss garagc conversions in general.
On July 19, 2005, the City Council received a status report from Staff on garage conversions that bave
been approved or denied since the inception of Ordinance 4-03 in Apri I 2003. Tbe City Council discussed
the intent of allowing garagc conversions and reached a consensus that the Ordinanec was not achieving
the City Council's intent. At that meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a futurc agcnda item
to have the Garage Conversion Ordinance 4-03 revoked and to develop a new Ordinance that better met
thc City Council's intent, whi!c considering thc fol1owing issues:
· Amount of off-strcct parking
· Subjectivity
· Requircmcnt to maintain garagc door
· Legality of sign-off of radius neighbors
· Scope ofthe appeal process
· Whether a CUP would be required
On October 25, 2005 thc Planning Commission received Staffs presentation regarding the proposed
an1endments to the Garage Conversion Ordinance. The majority of the Planning Commission expressed
concerns regarding the absence of a ncighbor sign-off or notification process tor garagc conversion
applications, as well as concerns regarding on-street and off-street parking in the neighborhood.
Following deliberations, tbe Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending that the City
Council adopt an ordinance to repeal Ordinance 4-03, which allows garage convcrsions with a conditional
use pel111it, and that the City Council not adopt any ncw ordinance to allow garagc conversions
(Attachment 5).
Amendment:
Staff has prepared draft ordinances that were designed to address the concerns of the City Council. The draft
ordinances would repeal Ordinance 4-03, which established a conditional use pennit for garage conversions
(Attachment I), and anJend Chapter 8 of the Municipal Code to allow garage conversions as a ministerial
action (Attachment 2). The new ordinance would enact Chapter 8.78 pertaining to garage conversions to
Page 3 of4
amend the Municipal Code. The new code section would allow garage conversions with the issuance of a
building permit, provided that tbe following perfol111ance standards are met:
A. There arc no modi f1eations to tbe garage door or to the exterior of the dwelling except for the
addition ofwindow(s) to the garage's walles) that do not front on the street.
B. Two full-size unenclosed parking spaces will be available on the parcel following the conversion.
Since the approval proccss would bc a ministerial action, there would be no right to appeal.
The City Altorney reviewed the legality of requiring neighbor sign-off from properties within the required
radius of a property applying for a ministcrial garage conversion pern1it. The City Attorney concluded that
such a requirement would violate the due process of rights of the owner oftbe subject property and would be
an unlawful delegation of power. It is the opinion of the City Attorncy that, if challengcd, such a provision
would not be upheld in a court of law.
StaiT has also prcpared a dralt ordinance to support the Planning Commission's recommendation to rcpeal
the current ordinance (4-03) and to not adopt a new garage conversion ordinancc (Attachment 3). The City
Council's selection of this OptiOIl would have the effect of repealing Ordinance 4-03 and amending Chapter
8 of the Municipal Code in order to remove the provisions which allow garage conversions as a
Conditionally Permitted Use. Garagc Convcrsions would then only be possible if the property OWJ1er could
provide two enclosed parking spaces elsewhere on the property.
Environmental Review:
On Allgust 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding that the Comprehensive Revision
to the Zoning Ordinancc, including Chapter 8.76, OiT-Street Parking and Loading Regulations is exempt
from the California Environn1ental Quality Act (CEQA). It can bc sccn with ccrtainty that there is no
possibility that revising tbe Zoning Ordinance in this manner would have a significant effect on thc
enviromnent (SectionI5061(b) (3). Various changcs to the Municipal Code listed above are proposed which
would IlOt increase or create envirollli1ental impacts. These changes will have no enviromnental impaclS and
arc also exempt ¡rom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen witb
certaillty that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a significant cITecl On the
cnviromnent.
CONCLUSION;
The Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.120) requires that all zoning ordinance amendments (such as the addition
of Chapter 8.78 Garage Conversions and proposed amendments to Chapter 8.76, Off-Strcet Parking and
ù)ading Regulations) he heard by the Planning Commission and following a public hearing, the Planning
Commission shall make a written rccommendation to thc City Council whether to approve, approve with
modi ¡¡cations, or disapprove the amendment. The proposed Ordinance option 1 (Attachment 3) follows
City Council's direction, while proposed Ordinance option 2 (Attachment 4) would implement the PlamJing
Commission's recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rccommends that the City Council open the public hearing and receive Staff presentation, take
testimony from the public, closc the public hearing, deliberate, waive tbe reading, introduce tbe Ordinance to
repeal Ordinance 4-03, and either waive the reading and introduce Ordinance option 1 (Attachment 2), whicb
would allow for Garage Conversions as a ministerial action or waive the reading and introduce option 2
(Attaclunent 3), which would amend the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the ability to convert
garages to living space in most instances.
Page 4 of 4
\ Db î?
ORDINANCE NO. XX-OS
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
01<" THE CITY OF DUBLIN
** * * ** ** *** ******** ** **** ********** ****
AN ORDINANCE 01<' THE CITY COUNCIL.oF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REPEALING
ORDINANCE NO. 4-03, RELATING TO GARAGE CONVERSIONS
WHEREAS, on April 1 ,2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4-03 of the Municipal Code,
entitled "Amending Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and PCl111ittcd Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76 Off-
Street and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional Use Permit, ofthe Dublin Zoning
Ordinance, P A 03-002" for the purpose of regulating development within the City.
WHEREAS, thc City Council dcsires to repeal Ordinance 4-03.
NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Section I;
Repeai of Ordinance No. 4-03
Ordinance No. 4-03 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, relating to garage conversions. is hereby
repealed.
Section 2:
Effective Date and Postin!! of Ordinance
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final
adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall causc this Ordinance to be posted in at least three
(3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 39633 ofthe Government Code of
California.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council ofthc City of Dublin on tbis
day of 2005, by the following votes:
AYES;
NOES:
ABSENT;
ABSTAIN;
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
". _..,--_._.__.,.,~..~-,-
G:\PA~\20û.3\03_00~ (ì!lraa~ r"n\"~r,\i()n'.Ci~mge c"nYer~i¡¡n2005\"r¡ r~nlil1~ 2Jll'n£~ c<)nv¢t'Sk)rJ "I'd [)cX"
:::r-:J.eM 0, L /,..:. J 5 ~o S-
ATIA-ç·H1'--'1~ J
2ðb T3
ORDINANCE NO. XX . OS
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
***************************************
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ENACTING
CHAPTER 8.78 01<' THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO GARAGE
CONVERSIONS, AND AMENDING DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS
8.12.050,8.76.070,8.76.080 AN)) 8.100.060.
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has dctcrmined that, the Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of
Land of the Dublin Zoning Ordinancc (Chapter 8.12); Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations of thc
Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.76); and Conditional Use Permit regulations of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance (Chapter 8.100), must be revised and Garagc Conversion (Chapter 8.78) must be enaçted to
more effectively regulate development within the City; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding that the
Comprehensive Revision to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Pcrmittcd
Uses of Land; Cbapter 8.76 Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditiona]
Use Permit regulations, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The various
changes to the Zoning Ordinance listcd above would also not create environmental impacts. These
changes are exempt from CEQA because it can be seen with cct1ainty that there is no possibility that such
amendments would have a significant effect on the envirunment (CEQA Guidelincs, Section 15061 (b)
(3)); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing un this project
on October 25, 2005, and did adopt Resolution 05,56 recommending that the City Council ß:.lJeal
Ordinance 4-03, rclatcd tog!lragU;¿onversions, and di~approve amendments 10 the City oLQ)JbIin Zoning
Ordinancc, which would allow garage conversions as a m\nbJ>,rÜlI <lpproval; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was hcld by the City Council on November 15,
2005; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the
Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.120.050.B of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council finds
that the Ordinance Amendments arc consistent with the Dublin General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and consider all said
reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Section 1:
Chapter 8.78 Added to Dublin Municipal Code
Chapter 8.78 is addcd to the Dublin Municipal Code, to read as follows:
ATTACHMENT 2.
3 Db 73
8.78010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for the conversion by the owners of
single-family dwellings of enclosed garages to living space.
8.78.020 Proccdure. Issuance of a building petmit for the conversion of an cnclosed garagc in a
single family dwelling into living spacc shall be ministerial if the following criteria are all mct:
A. There are no modifications to the garagc door or to the exterior of the dwe1ling cxccpt for
thc addition of window(s) to tbe garage's walles) that do not front on the street.
B. Two full-size uncnclosed parking spaces will be available on the parcel following the
conversIOn.
Section 2:
Amendment of Dublin Municipal Code section 8.12.040
Section 8.12.050, Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
is amended to read as follows:
RESIDENTJA L US E TYPES
Residentiai Use Type A R-l R-2 R-3 R·4 C- CoN C- 1 C-2 M- M-l M-2
0 P
~"-'-"-,.,^~'
Residential COIlve"ioIl of p
Garaªe to LiviIl~ Soace - - - - " - . - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
Section 3;
Amendment of Dublin Municipal Code section 8.76.070.A.14(a)(I)
Section8.76.û70.A.14(a)(l) is modified to read as follows:
a. Singie family lot.
I. Principai residence. All parking spaces shall be located on the same parcel as the
residence they serve, unlcss provided as a Residential Parking Lot by the Zoning
Administrator pllrsllant to a Conditional Use Pennit. The most distant parking
space in a Residelltial Parking Lot shall be not more than 150 feel from the
residences they serve. Parking spaces rcquired by this Chapter sball be located
within an encloscd garage, except that two. full-size. unenclosed parking spaces
may bc provided elsewherc on a lot for tbe pumoses of converting a residential
garage to living space pursuant to Chapter 8.78. Other than the two required
garaged parking spaccs, a maximum of two vehides (which shall include, but not
be limited to. an automobile, car, truck, or Recreational Vchic1e) may be parked in
the following areas if screened by a 6 foot high fence or waH and if at lcast one side
yard is unobstructed to a width of 36 inches: Areas 1,2, 3a, 3b and 4. Additional
parking may occur in area Sa. Parking in area 5b shall be as required by Section
8.76.060.E.2. No parking shall occur in area 5c except as permitted by Section
8.76.060.E.4. See Figure 76-2. Parking in a driveway shall not compensate for
required enclosed garage parking unless two. full-size, unencloscd parking spaces
are provided for the pumoses of converting a residential garage to living sDace. No
parking shaH occur in Area 6.
.
Section 7:
Effective Date and
4 i7b 73
in Municipal Code section 8.76.080.B
as follows:
al Use Types shall provide off-strcct parking spaç"s as follows:
NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQlJIRED
2 in enclosed garage per dwclling:: plus one on-street
parking space per dwdling unit within 150 feet of tbat
dwelling unit.
2 in endosed garage per dwelling::
ng spaces are Drovided elscwhcre on a lot for the pUIlJOses of
açe pursuant to ChaDter 8.78.
n Municinal Code section 8.100.060
, is deleted from the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to read as
familY resideAtial garages to li viae: :;paee, arohile¡¡tural
e CAaraeter, Beale lIad uualit\' of tHe BesiE:a. the areAiteeturaI
other buildiRe:s, l;!I!ildi.aE: malølÌals aRB solors. sHeeaiFlg of
fÎor lii:htiAg, aRd siæilar elemeflts Rave BeeR iRSÐt'Ðofllted iflto
of aÐÐToval iA order Is iasure çomfJatibilit', sf this
13H!eat's desi gA eORGOf)t or theme ¡¡Ad ',be CAat'aster of udillçeflt
d HBes.
ble and if any provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereof
inapplicable to any person or circumstanœs, such illcgality,
ility shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions,
thereof of tbe ordinance or thcir applicability to othcr persons
Postin!!: of Ordinance
orce thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final
lin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3)
dance with Section 39633 of tbe Government Code of
Section 4;
Amendment of Dub
Scction 8.76.080.B is modified to read
B. Residential Use Types. Rcsidenti
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES
Sin Ie FamilylDu lex/Mobile Home
Lots of 4,000 square feet or less
Lots greater than 4,000 squarc fcct
" E",cept if two, full-sizc, unenclosed Darki
conve¡1ing a residential garage to living SD
Section 5;
A mendment to DubIi
Section 8.100.060.H, R"(juired Findings
follows:
11. For the eom'ersioR of sinde
GORsideratisas, iflcludiae: tR
relatilm~:Rif) with ~he site aad
eKtedor i:lÐÐl:Irte"Aaflsea. 81(t6
the Droied aI''':! as GoRtlitieRs
BeveloÐH1eHt with tRe devele
ÐHilElings, ReÜ:hborhood:\, at1
Section 6: Severabilitv
The provisions of this Ordinance are severa
is hdd illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or
invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicab
clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts
or cirçumstances.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in f
adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Dub
public places in the City of Dublin in accor
California.
!:::>ðQí3
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this _ of
November 2005, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES;
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN;
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\PAIt\2003\03-002 Gamge Conversion\Gamgc cOllvcrsion2005\g,'Iragc cony ord nptinn I.!JOC
U2 èi'tJ 7 3
ORDINANCE NO. XX - 05
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
** * * * **** **** * * **** ** * ** ** ** * ** * * * * ** **
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ßNM;HN(:;
CHAPTER 8.78 OJ? I'm; Dl!RUN MUNl(;l.V·Al,..(,::øD~-·~~I:.f.NG-l'{).c.\RAO~
CONVERSIONS, f.ND AMENDING DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS
8.12.050,8.76.070,8.76.080 AND 8.100.060.
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has determined that, the Zoning Districts and Permittcd Uses of
Land oflhe Dublin Zoning Ordinancc (Chapter 8.12); On:strcet Parking and Loading Regulations of the
Dublin ZOlling OrdinaJ1ce (Cbapter 8.76); and Conditional UsePel111it regulations of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance (Chapter 8.100), must be revised amI Gara¡;ø ConV0r~;ì()n (CÀaplQr 8.78) ]1'\~ut be ønar;led to
fI_·øflectiY€1-Y-Fegulatedeve!oplJ1ent-withill-theCity; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 IÏnding tbat the
Comprehensive Revision to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Pern1itted
Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76 Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Cbapter 8.100 Conditional
Use Pennit regulations, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The various
changes to the Zoning Ordinance listed above would also not create environmental impacl$. These
changes are excmpt from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such
amcndmcnts would havc a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061 (b)
(3»); and
WHEREAS, the Plarming Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on this project
on October 25,2005, and did adopt Resolution 05-56 recommending tbat the City COlll1cil repeal
Qr(li¡lijJ)ççA:Q~,rçlªtç(L!Q.gªrª,ge_n,!!!y>xsiQlli.Jmd cJi~approve anJendments to the Citv of Duhlin Zoning
Ordinance, )YJÜÇh..\y.QIild.JÜ1Q.w garage conversions ¡IS a mi]1isterial approval; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on November 15,
2005; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending tbat the City Council approve the
Zoning Ordinance Amendments; aJ1d
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.l20.050.B of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council finds
that the Ordinancc Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its indepcndent judgmcnt and consider all said
reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council oflhe City of Dublin docs ordain as follows:
SeetioH 1;
Cllltllter 8.78 Added to DllbliH Muaieillal Çøde-
(;hapler·&;·78-·i6·addeGt&lhe-D~hlin Manieiral Code, to œad as [01.l0W6:
ATTACHMENT 3
8.7&010 Purpose. TAe purpose of tAi
siR.;le faffiil)' sv:ellingB sf efldosed ;;ufHges
1>,~f--"----¥fø¡;e' ~Ift7.-l:;:;uunce of a bui
B¥ngJo rumi!)' clwolling,nt,\-~~It!t
A-.---..·--····~11efe--Hre Flø'¡¡lOdificutions to
the adÒ,ioH O '·W4-11GHW{M 10
B. T....o full :;i;·.e unenclosed lxl1
COflYer.aOA.
I Section 1: Amelldmcnt of Dub
Scetion 8.12.050, PcrmiHcd and Conditio
is amended to read as fo1lowR:
RESID
Residentiai Use Typc A R-t R-2
~~.~~"'... -.~~~,..,~
Residential Conversion of £
G¡\ra~c to Livin~ Súa.çç - -
- -
Section 2; Amendment of Dubi
Section 8.76.070.A.14(a)(1) is modified
a. Single family lot.
1. Principai residence.
residence they serve,
Administrator pursua
space in a Residential
rcsi dcnccs they serve
within an enclORed ga
mn~:.be.pn)·ii çled. el:.;e
j!;afa~e to livißE SÐUce
garaged parking space
be limitcd to, an autom
thc following areas if
yard is unobstructed t
parking may occur in
8.76.060.E.2. No par
8.76.060.EA. See Fig
required enclosed gar
ure Dro'iided f-or tRe Ð
parking shall occur in
.- --.--
ì Db í3
(: CRapter iR to prsvise fer tRe eOHversiofl by the oWflers of
to liviHg spaee.
IdiHg permit for the GOFl'ffir¡¡iøH·ø¥-ttft-e¡-1clt)sed garage iH 'I
II be mi"i:;t~ri'll if IRØ following critøriH·!tfe'itH--!lJet,
the ;;uru;;e duur or tu th8 oxt8fffir-ekR&i'¡viellin;; e.¡¡cept for
tho g!tm;;e's walle:;) thut do nOl front on the Rlfæt--,
'king ~;pflOOS w~+·Ðe-t\YuiluÐ.le OH Ihe pareel following tÀe
lin Municipal Code section 8.12.040
nally Permitted Land Uses, of tbe Dublin Zoning Ordinancc
ENTlAL USE TYPES
R-3 R-4 C- CoN C·1 C·2 M- M-I M-2
0 P
~'.,"~
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
in Municipai Code section 8.76.070.A.14(a)(j)
to read as follows;
All parking spaces sha1l be located on the same parçel as the
unless provided as a Rcsidential Parking Lot by the Zoning
nt to a Conditional Use Permit. The most distant parking
Parking Lot shall be not more than 150 feet from the
Parking spaces required by this Chapter shaH be located
ragc, e!l.ee 1t tQj1t two. full ~ize. unenclo:;ed I1l±fkin~ s¡¡uoe,
wR~re on ~. 101 for the IJ¡,¡r¡¡SSOS oC!;'oß\~~rlim: ~l recidefltd
L1ur:;\iHHllo ChaOLer g.7g. Other than the two required
s, a maximum of two vchiclcs (which shaH include, hut not
obile, car, truck, or Recrcational Vehicle) may be parked in
screened by a 6 fOOl high fence or waH and if at least one side
o a width of 36 inches: Areas J, 2, 3a, 3b and 4. Additional
area Sa. Parking in area 5b shall be as required by Section
king shall occur in area 5e except as permitted by Section
ure 76-2. Parking in a driveway shall not compensate for
age parking IJlIleRß two. full size. uflefle!o:.,ed )arl:ifl~ R]'H;OOB
ul' )o~e~; of cnll...ørtiA~ a £ea.icl0Rtiul ¡:arll¡:e to livin~ t:oaee. No
Area 6.
Section 6:
Effective Date and
ß DO 73
nicipal Code section 8.76.080.B
as follows:
al Use Types shall provide orf-street parking spaces as follows:
NUMBER of PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
2 in cncloscd garage per dwe!1ing!!: plus onc on-strect
parking space pcr dwelling unit within 150 feet of that
dwelling unit.
2 in enclosed garage per dwelling:;:
illf: spaces are 13rsYided elsewHere on a lot for tRe purpocc&-Bf
ace PUn~mmE--I&GlHI Jter g.7f~.
in Municipai Code section 8.100.060
s, is deleted from the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to read as
familY resideRtial f:araf:eg to li"iRI": BÐaœ. arehitedur<ll
e ellaracter. scale tlßd uU<lli~',· of the ¡leaiI":R, tlie urdlitectural
d other bllildiflf:s, l3¡,¡ilEliRf: materials ôH1d colorg, gcreeflifll?, of
riOT IÜ:htim:, and similar eleæeRts Have beeR iRcomOT<lled iRtn
s of tlIJIJroY<lI iH order In iHSIlFe eeæÐatibility of this
oemeat's desi i:fI cOflcep[ or theme aAd tlie CHaracter of <ldiaceRt
REI Hses.
able and if any provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereof
inapplicable to any person or circumstances, such illegality,
bility shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions,
thereof of the ordinance or thcir applicability to other persons
Postim! of Ordinance
orce thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final
blin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3)
dance with Section 39633 of the Government Code of
ED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 15th of
Section 3; Amendment of Dublin Mu
Section 8.76.080.B is modified to read
B. Residential Use Types. Rcsidcnti
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES
Lots greater than 4,000 square feet
" ÐJWeDt if ~Y"O. hilI si;:e. liRenclo¡;ed park
conYCrtiHf: u IeßidcFlti<l[ ;:uru¡:e tu 1i ',-iR g :: )
Section 4:
Amendment to Duhi
Section 8. 1 00.060.H, Rcquired Pinding
follows:
H. For the eOfl\'efS1SR sf siRde
eOAsideratioflg, iflCludiRf: tk
rel<ltioRuHilJ with Ihe silø an
extsRsr aaaHÂeRflHees, eJlt.e
the ßroiect and aß .8Rsilioa
de'leloßmeRt witll tke ¡l8ve1
bliildiFlf:G, neif:hborhoods, a
Section 5: Severabilitv
The provisions of this Ordinance are sever
is held illcgal, invalid, unconstitutional, or
invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplica
clauses, sentences, sections, words or patts
or circumstances.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in f
adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Du
public places in the City of Dublin in accor
California.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPT
November 2005, by the following votes:
AYES;
NOES;
ABSENT;
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clcrk
O:\PA#\200:ì\0l-n02 narag~ C( nyt=.TSí( n\Garag;~ (;(1llvtl'sion2005\gílJ'<Igc conv ord option 2.])()(:
q Ub 7 '3
Mayor
/00(;; 73
ORDINANCE NO.4 - 03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*****'ir:***
AMENDING CHAPTER 8.12 ZONING DISTRICTS AND l'ERMITTED USES OF LAND;
CHAPTER 8_76 OI"F-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS; AND
CHAPTER 8.100 CONDITONAL USE PERMIT, OJ·' THE DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE, P A 03-002
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has determined that, the Zoning Districts and Pennittcd Uses of
Land of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.12); Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.76); and Conditional Use Permit regulations of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance (Chapter 8.100), must be revised to more effcctively regulate development within the City; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding tl1at thc
Comprehensive Revision to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permitted
Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76 Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional
Use Permit regulations, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The various
changes to the Zoning Ordinance listed above would also not \..Teate environmental impacts. These
changes are exempt ftom CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such
amendments would have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061 (b)
(3»; and
WHEREAS, the PlaIUJing Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on this project
on f'ebruary 25, 2003, Wld did adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 1, 2003;
and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the
Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section8.120.050.B of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council finds
that the Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent j udgment and consider all said
reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Section 1
Section 8.12.050, Permitted and Conditionally Pennitted Land Uses, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
1S amended to read as follows;
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES
Residential Conversion of
Garn..e to'Tivin.. Snooe
A R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 C- CoN C-l C-2 M- M-I M-2
0 P
- ~ - - - - - : - - ~ -
- - - - - - - - -
ATTACHMENT 4-
Residential Use Type
/1 ú(;; 73
Section 2
Section 8.76.070.A.14, Location of Required Parking Spaces, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinancc is
amended to read as follows:
a. Single family lot.
1. Principal residence. All parking spaces shall be located on the same parcel as the
residence they serve, unless provided as a Residential Parking Lot by the Zoning
Administrator pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit. The most distant parking
space in a Residential Parking Lot shall be not more than 150 fcct from the
residences they servc. Parking spaces required by this Chapter shall be located
within an enclosed garage, except that two. full-siz.ç. unencl<.1s",d parking spaces
may be 'p'-ennitted elsewhcre on a lot pursuant to a Conditional Usc Pcnnit for the
purposes of converting a residential garage to living space, Other than the two
required garaged parking spaces, a maximum of two vehicles (which shall include,
but not be limited to, an automobile, ear, truck, or Reercational Vehicle) may be
parked in the following areas if screened by a 6 foot high fence or wall and if at
least one side yard is unobstruct",d to a width of 36 inchcs: Arcas 1,2, 3a, 3b and
4. Additional parking may occur in area Sa. Parking in arca 5b shall be as required
by Section 8.76.060.E.2. No parking shall occur in aœa 5c except as pennÎtt",d by
Section 8.76.060.EA. See Figure 76-2. Parking in a driveway shall not
compensate for required enclosed garage parking unless two. full-size. unenclosed
parking spaces are permitted pursu@t to a Conditional U~e Permit for the purposes
QJ converting a residential ¡¡ara¡¡:e to living space. No parking shall occur in Area
6.
Section 3
Section 8.76.080, Parkin~ Requirements by Use Type, ofthe Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to
read as follows:
B. Residential Use Types_ Residential Use Types shall provide off-street parking spaces as follows:
.
RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REOUlRED
Sin¡¡;le Family/Duplex/Mobile Home
Lots of 4,000 square feet or less 2 in enclosed garage per dwelling:': plus one on-street
parking space per dwelling unit within 150 feet of that
dwelling unit.
Lots greater than 4,000 square feet 2 in enclosed garage per dwellin~
. Exceot ¡ftwo. full-size. unenclosed oarkÎllil SOllCes are pennittcd elsewhere on a lot nursuanl 10 a Conditional Use Permit
for the numnses of convertÎn2 a residential 2ara2e to Jivin2 sDace.
/ 2- ðb 73·
Section 4
Scction 8.100.060, Required Findings, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows:
H. l'or tQ,e"conversion of single family residential garages to living space, architectum.!
9lliê.iç1.'"Xiltions. including the character, S<;ª!cImd quality ofthe design. the architectural
rclationshiPJ,yi:th the site and other buildings. building materials and colors. scrcenin¡; of
exterior appurtenances. exterigr licllting. and similar elements have been incorporated into
the project and as conqitiQ.I1s of approvaJ in order to insure eompatibilitv of this
development with the development's design concept or theme and the character of adiaeent
buildings, nei~hborhoods. and uses,
Section 5 - Severability
The provisions oftlüs Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause, sentence, word (Jr part thercof
is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any person or circumstances, such illegality,
invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any ofthc remaining provisions.
clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the ordinance or their applicability to other persons
or circumstances.
Section 6 - Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its fmal
adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3)
public places in the City of Dublin in accordancc with Section 39633 of the GoVeflU]lent Code of
California.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dnblin on tllis l"day of
April 2003, by the following votes;
AYES: Counciimembers McCormick, Sbranti and Mayor L"ckhaM
NOES: Counciimembers Oravetz and Zika
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
AtTEST:
AOUJA-~/~
K'/G/4-1-03/ord-garnge-conv.doc (Item 6.1)
G;'J:'A#~OO3\03-002\CC-ord,doc
13 Ùô 73
RESOLUTION NO. 05· 056
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
--. ,.~ ._.._.._-,_...~,-,.,""." "._-~
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO REPEAL ORiHNANCE 4-03 RELATED
TO GARAGE CONV~:RSiONS; AND RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 8.12, ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND;
CHAPTER 8.76, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS;
AND CHAPTER 8.100, CONDITONAL USE PERMITS, OF TITLE 8, THE CITY OF DUBLIN
MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT GARAGE CONVERSIONS
PA 03-002
WHEREAS, a comprehensive revision to the Zonjllg Ordinance (Ordinancc 20-97) was adopted
by the City Council on September 2, 1997; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002, City Council requested that Staff considcr modification of
the City's enclosed parking requirement by eliminating the requirement for two off-strect parking spaccs
in an enclosed garage to allow for the conversioll of garages to Ii vjng spacc; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002, Staff prescntcd a report to the City Coundl regarding tbe
City's current requirements for residelllial off-street parking; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002, the City Council directed Staff to prepare an amendment to
the Zoning Ordinancc to remove the requirement for two off-street parking spaces in an encloscd garage
to al10w for the conversion of garagcs to living space; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2003, Staff presented a report to the Planning Commission regarding
an amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2003, the Planning Commission directed Staff to provide alternatives
and stndies regarding the amendment to Chapter 8.76, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance and its impact on garage conversions; and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2003, tbe Planning Commission adopted a Resolution
recommending that City Council adopt an ordinance that would allow garage conversions with a
Conditional Use Pel111it; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2003, the City Council conductcd thc first reading to introduce the
Ordinance to amend the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to al10w for conversion of residential garage space to
living space with a Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, on April!, 2003, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 4-03 amending Chapter
8.12 Zoning DiRttietR and Permittcd Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76 Off-Street Parking and Loading
Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional URe Pennit, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2005, the City Council heard an appeal of the Planning Commission
approval of a conditional usc permit for a garage conversion at 7697 Canterbury Lane (PA 04-036); and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2005, the City Council requested that Staff place an item on a future
agenda to discuss garage conversions in general; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2005, Staff presented a status report to the City Council on garage
conversions that have been approved or denied since Ordinance No. 4-03 was adopted in 2003; and
1
ATTACHMENT ~
/cfÚè 73
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2005, the City Council directed Staff to prepare an ordinance to revoke
the Garage Conversion Ordinance No. 4-03 and devclop a new ordinance that better met the City
Council's intent; and
WH~:REAS, Staff prepared a Staff Rcport for thc Planning Commission d(lted Octohcr 25,2005
analyzing the amendments to the Dublin ZOlling Onlinan<;e; ,md
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hcaring on said
amendments to thc Dublin Zoning Ordinance for which proper notice was givcn in accordancc with
California State Law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and
considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove sct forth.
WHEREAS, Ordinance 4-03 must be repealed and Chaptcr 8.12, Zoning Districts and Permitted
Uses of Land; Chapfer 8.76, Off-street Parking and Loadillg Regulations; and Chapter 8.100, Conditional
Use Permit, must be revised and Chapter 8.78 Garage Conversion must be enacted to morc cffcctivcly
regulatc off-street parking and the conversion of garages in the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding lhattbe
Comprehensive Revision to the Zoning Ordinancc, including Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permiued
Uses of Land; Chapte. 8.76 Off-street Parking and Loading Rcgulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional
Use Permit regulations, is exempt from tbe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The various
changes to the Zoning Ordinance listcd above would also not create environmcntal impacts. Thcsc
changes are exempt from CEQA because it can be scen with ccrtainty that there is no possibility that such
amendments would have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidclincs, Section 15061 (b)
(3»; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT thc Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that the City Coun<:il find that the revocation of Ordinance 4-03 has no possibility for
a significant effect on the environment (CEQA, Section 15061 (b) (3)), tbat the amcndments are
consistent with the General Plan, and does recommend that the City Council repeal Ordinancc 4-03 ,
which established a conditional use permit process for garagc conversions, as shown in Attachment 2 10
the October 25,2005 Staff Report for PA 03-002, and that no new Garage Conversion Ordinance is
enactcd. Thc Planning Commission does not rccommend the proposed amendments as shown in
Attachmcnt 4, which would create a ministerial process for garage <;onversions to the Octobcr 25,2005
Staff Report for PA 03-002.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25'" day of October 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES;
ABSENT;
ABSTAIN;
Chair Schaub, Cm.Wchrenbcrg and Fasulkey
Cm. King and Biddle
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Community Development Director
(;:\F'AII\ZOO3W3-1))2 Garage ('.on~en;ion\Gmuse ¡;!Jn~mOOn200S~ R~!I'J revi~ulllix CC 11-15-1)S
2
}
fbf56-'13
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 19. 2002
SUBJECT:
Raidcntial Q:!TStæCt Parking - Discu95Ícm of City Rc:iWreIl1C.t1ts
Report Prepared by; Jeri Ram, Planning Manapr ~
ATTACHMENT:
L
2.
Section 8.76.070.14 of Zoning 0rcI.iœnœ
PlatmingDivision Work Program Staff Report dated 10/15/02
RECOMMENDATION: L
. 4(/¥£.
Receive Staff presentation
Give Staff direction on whether additional studies should be done on
this iSBUO and if h :should be added to Stafi's work program.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Nom: at this 'lime.
DESCRIPTION:
Co\lnd1m~ber Tim Sbranti has requ::mcd that the City Council consider modification of the City's
enclosed. parking requîreml:Ili by eHmilUlting the requimnent. for twO enclosed off-street PlIlking ipilQes
and requiring only two (>ff-stteelt pll:1'king spaces.
In May 19S2 (after incorporation) the City of Dublin adopœd. the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance as
1:he City of'Dubiin Zoning Ordinance. Over time, the City gmdmlly amended and modífied. the Zoning
Ordinance to iIDdress the City of Dublin's needs IU'Id issues. Under the Al!WJ¡,¡da Cot.mty Zonin&
QrdÎmLnœ and the earl)' City of Dublin ZOning Ordinance, two off-street parking spaces 'We1'e requin:d for
single-family residential dwellin8 units. There was not a requiremwt for the parking spaces to be
enclosed or covered; however, there was a requireMent that the two off-strI!eIt parking Sþaces could not be
. puked in Ii required ftont yard or the street side yard of a comer lot.· This had the effect of Dot allowing
for garage cOtlversioJ1$: as the.re was generally nowhere else to perk the C8l'S off-street-
As the City devl!!!loped on the west side ofDoughtery Road. e1l1:he single-family reSidential units were .
built in 1\ conventional style with two œr gartge:s and standard driveway lengths. Lot sizes were larger, in
gcn=l, thllJ} they 8M today in 1:he newly developing are~ These larger lots enable more on-s1rect
parking as the distances between driveways where parkins is allowed is longer than OD the CIIIrower lots.
When the Eastern DublinSpecific Plan was approved in 19S7, the Plan called for Planned Development
Zoning Districts as part ofits implementation strategy, This strategy Allows for variation\! in zoning
standards (inclwÎ;ug off-stre« parking) to aceomrnoda1e different types of dwelling units.
Additionally, the plan's vision is fOJ an urban type of environment. Aß Ii rest/It. this ml.>te UJ'ban plan
=à'tès sm.a1ler, narrower and dens~ lot configurations. These ruuTOweI' lots have less on-street parking,
----..--------
---
-_..----
.~--~~--_..
G:~\200Z\CCS!lotDÞoIpIllkiDS )-19-02.DOC
COPIES
ITEM ~
ATTACHMENT :,b~
, ... I LQ u. n::77,
as there Ï!; less space betweet livcwa.ys. Additionally, some ofthc: ~ .\:ts = private and havo rcsttféfed"'" .
oo-streOt parkinr¡ areas. Some stre6ts, in fact, do not allow on-met parking at all and special guest
parking areas are provided. Some of the residential de$ìgns vary the front yard sotbacks. This variation in
front yard setbacks may also c:rcate shorter driveways ÙIaII are cOnventional. These driveways do not
ellflble the parking of œm off street, as the automobiles would (OO(md on to the sideWalk. In short, the
desi¡¡n of the lIubdìvisJon and ¡:jte development review of the homes did not !lD.ticipate conversion of th:::
garage to another use.
In 1997, the City of Dublin çompletc:d a. comprehensive revision to the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
The revised Ordînance included a Dew requirement that !ringle-family residential units must have two off -
street parking spaces in an enclosed garage. Although Plamled Development ZOning Districts have the
ability to vary from the Parking ReC¡uirements, all p,..nned Development Zmring Dist;ri¢t¡; for single-
family detached units that the City has appIOved inc1ude the requirement for two off·s1.t'eo'! parking spaces
in an cnclos=d ga:rage.
During. the past year, StBffh!lS opened'sevem code eIIforceri1.ent cases re1atin¡ to illegal g~
conversions. staffhe.s worked with the homeowners and informed 1hem ofur options under the Zoning
Ordinance. Thalr options are:
1. Applying for Ii variance md h!!.ving it approved. Granting of B variance by the Planning
CommiliSiO!:l or City Council is difficult, as the decisioMrwk.e:rs must make all five fmdings
t~uired by State law. One of th=sc findings is that tAeJ:e is something physically unusual
about the lot that d¡:prives the property ownetS ftom dlWelopinr¡ their property as others ÎJ). their
zoning district. Ver:y few residential sites in Dublin fit into this category.
2. Apply to change the Zomng Ordinance to allow for gllrngl':: converBÍons by removin¡ the
requirement for two off·street enclolled spaces; and .
3_ Retum the garage to in requ~ use, This involvcs removing strUctures and walls.
If the City Council would like Staff to further explore the possibility of amencl.ini the off-sm::et pi\r1dJ1g
rcq'\lire:mcnts for single-ramlly residential dwcl1ing units, to allow for garage ccmv=rsionB, issues tba.t
would need to be adc:Irtsscd include;
· The ability to allow for garage conversion<! -throughout the City when the development pattcms iL1
Eastern Dublin w=rc IIpocially tailored for a certain pllt'king configurarion;
· Equity issues tlone portion oftbe City = coover! their garages while the other poItiOll of the: City
camrot;
· Adequacy 6f on-:itrec't parking to !æoommodat= those who wish to COIIVert their gEl!'ll.@e as
automobiles have becoßlC larger and =y ftmilíes have more than two ¡;:an;
· Loss of sight lines along residential streets whìch may increase vehicular and pedestrian aßC.Ìden1:s;
and
· The change In the streetscape pattern of rcsidential.areas as more and morc cars move on to the
street and off private properties.
. Additionally, this item would M",d tQ be added to S1aff's work proSf811\ and other high priority projects
m~y take longer to ac¢ömpllllh (see Átt!IDhment 2).
,;1.4 ß
i . i /7 r5b 73.
A3 part. of any addi1;ional work authorizcdby the City Council on this item, Staff would prepare-a ~ '
report exam1ning the a~ issues in greater depth and conduct a survey of Bay AreajurlsdicmoJ:1S to see
which cities allow garage ccmversions and which do not.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive Staffprcsentation and give staff direction on whethe:r additional s.tudies should be dot\e em ibis
is81lC IWd if it should be added to Staff's W01k program.
3~.~
Ie, Dbì3
Ms. lowart stated we will mail to everyone who came to Jast night s meetiI1g and will
ask Toll Brothers to invite all new people.
Mayor Lockhart requested that they also state the date the Par1œ & Comnumity Services
Commission will be discussing this.
Kasie HilcIctIbrand suggested something Þe Ïru;¡ludcd in the HO.A ~.
Mayor Lockharl8\:a.ted. one of the criteria she would like to see included is the
Mghborhood makeu.p. We have quite a.n Asian influence and mAybe we shou1ä take
this into cOtlsiðeration. AI90, have input from the developers.
Ms. LoWB1't stated the developers were represented at ihe m~t:ing last: night. They
presented alternatives with different elements and asked the people to pick and choose
from the alternatives.
Mr..Ambrose pointed,ou.t this item ck.als with 2I.IU11.Wg the park rather t:ha.n design issues.
Ms. Lowart stated December 161h will be the next meeting.
Consensus of the Council was to put trus off. Even though this is a. neighborhood park, it
belOIlgs to the whole community. Staff showd get feedÞack:from the next meeting a.nd
then take it to the Pa.rks 8; Community Services Commission .and then to the City
Council
..
RESID¡NI'IAL OFF»~Ti.m: FARKING -DISCUSSION OF C11Y REO~
10:46 p.m. &.4 (450~20)
:Planning Manager Joti Ram presented the Staff ~ and gave historical information.
Cm. Sbranti requested that the City Council consider modi£ication of the City's enclosed.
parking requirement by elim:ina.ting the requirement for two enclosed off-street parking
spaces and:requjring only two off-street parking spaces.
Ms. Ram staWd if the City Council would like Støff to further explore the possibility of
amending the off-street parking requ:irements for single-family dwelling units to allow .
for garage oortversions, issues that would need to be addressed include:
CITY COUNCIL MIN1J'I'ES .
VOLUME 21
REGULAR. MEETING
November 1 9. 2002
PAGE 587
ft'JT"'^""II!!!:'''''T /"
M P.t;~ J'h.i1 . b 0.. .
)q:"tIf¿ 13",
1) The ability to allow for garage cortvttSions throughout the City when the
dev~l<JPIIleIlt patterns in Eastern Dublinwerc sp'"riÐ 11y tailored for a. certain parking
configuration;
Z) Equity issues if one portion of the City can convert their garages while the other
portion of the City ca.rm.ot;
g) Adequacy of on~street parking to ¡ .Coommodate those who wish to convert their
.garage as automobiles have become larger and many families have m~ thAn two ca.rs;
4) Loss. of si8ht :li:nes along residential streets which may increar>e vehicular aJld
pedestrian accìdettts; and
5) The change in the streetsca.pe pattern of residential areas &S more and moI'è cars move
on to the street and off private properties.
Additionally, this item would. noed to be added to Staff's woik: program and other h5sh
priority projects msy ta.ke longer to accomp1:is.h. A3 part of any additional work
authorized by the City Cou:ncil on this itent, Staff would. prepare a S1aff Report
exami11ing the above ÎBsues in ,grea.ter depth and conduct a survey of Bay Area
juriBdiCtion5 to see which cities allow garage conversions and which do not, and
imp1icati011S.
Mary JWss, Dorwn Court, stated this affects pet'Ple living jn the community. She is a
recent resident moving here from the PenÏnSl.Ù11. 'f'his is a oommunity and she has gotten
to know people who give Dublin its sig:niiica.n.œ and its character. There are a lot of
cars on the street. There is no usable storage in most of the homes. So many of the
garages are filled to capacity \Vith stuff. This measure seems directed in a punitive
measure which would affe.ct so manypeop1e not able to park their cars in their gara.ges.
It seems unenforceable and if it is, it seems ä little bit too big brother. It would adversely
aife(Jj:~le, contributing members, who are trying to live productive Jives and add to
this community.
Cm. Sbranti stated he would ruwér want to bring forward su.g:ge~tions that would cause
more coft$estion in the streets. He doesn't $ðe how tr' II \::i'1.$ one simple change taki11g
awaY' "enclosed" would talœ away anything. You still must provide 2 off street pa.rking
spaces. He dìd not feel there would be A widesprca.d move to Ixmvert garages. This
could be a situation where an elder parent coUld have a kwel of privacy. There are
lcgiti:mate scenarios where he could see this going fQt"W'a.!'(i. You. would. still bve to
provide Z spaces. Some of the: inequities are created by a hom&JW1'lers a.5Socúttíon-
When you live in certain parts of town, there are pluses and minuses. Every
CITY COUNCIL MINUI'ES
VOLUME 21
REGULARMEmNG
November 19, 2002
PAGE 588
:;)(}Cô 7-3
neighborhood bûœs on a different character. This ordinance is. overly punitive, as
written. He did not feel this change is that complicated We have to only remove the
word "enclo!led".
Cn1. Zika stated he lives in a neighborhood where- almost every house has at least one car
in the garage- and one car in the driveway. He has to put his garbage can out early in
order to have a place to put it on the street. He gets calls on a rcgu1a.r Þasis where people
don't :have room. to put their garbage cätIS out. He pointed out that tIæ:. new requirement
for garbage- bins reqttÏre$ 1 7 feet.
.Mayor lockhart stated p.<1rking on the st:reetis not illegal. If we were rea.11y serious
about this, probably 95% of the City could be cited.
em.. Oravetz stated he likes garage conversions for mother-in-law units; partic:u1arly if
we could use some of these units toward our affort:lAble housing goah. Mo8t of the
people on his street have 3. or 4 cars.
Mr _ Peabody stated some cities allow garage conversions and some do not. There are a
variety of reasons. Some have prohibited t.hi.s due to aesthetic reasons. It is ft :mixed bag.
Mayor Lockhart $lated she felt people won't go OUt an do conversions no mat!:e:r wlutt i:he
City Council says.
Mr. Ambro:setalked about code enforcement iswes that staff deals with such as boat or
RV .st.o:rage.
Cm. Sbranti stated he did not £eel there will be a large msh of people going out and
doirJg ga.rage oonversions. Given the houshlg needs, there are a lot of reasons people
may go froward with this type of thing. He did not feel this win have an imp&Çt: one way
or tb¢ other on street par1:i11g. .
Cm. Oravetz a.slœd. if he converted his garage, could he get credit for an af'fordable unit.
Mr. Peabody explained that it may be atl illegal use. Ii it were II. stCo:nd mrit, he wou1:l.
have to get permiUi and pay feel> and pI'QVicie parl:it1g for that unit.
Cm. McCormick stated she felt converted garages aItd parking are two different BUbjects.
'This has to do with wording to remDVe requirements for covered parkitlg spaces.
Maym' Lockhart stated she felt if you just take the word "coverod:>1 out, t1ùs would :fix it.
CITY COUNCIL.MINtrJ'ES
VOWME 21
REGUL.i\R MEETING
November 19, 2002
PAGE 589
()t 6b73
Cm. Oravetz 11~1Mii if this wOl11djust open ""Pandora's Box"?
Mr. Peabody stated as a practical matter, we- advise people in fue;older porliœt of Dublin
to put an addition onto their house. In ma.ny cases, the garage conversions are talked
about as being work spaces or 1a:rgcr family rooms rAther than dwellingB for relatives.
This :W what the usual request has been, baæd on his experience.
em. Sbranti stated the real issue is not about garAge con~ but park:ing spaces.
em.. McCormiok stated people. ha.ve stuff and they can't get cars into their garage
:anyway.
Ms. Ram stated they could take this to the PlIUU'IiItg Conu:nisskm and then back to the
City CounciL Just take ou:t word "enc1o-5edJ covered" .
On motion of Cm_ Sbranti, seconded by Mayor Lockhart, and by majority vote. the
Ç(Juncil directed Staff to bring the issue to take out of the Ordirlance the requirement for
2 enclosed off sÍI'O(';\: spaces to the Planning Commission and CHy CounciL Cm. Zika
voted in opposition to the motion. .
.
FISCAl. YEAR 2002-03 GOALS & QB}ECTIVI'.S- STATUS REPORT
ANDCAPIT'AL IMPR.OV'E1\1ENT PROGRAM SeHEÐuU:
11:16 p.m. 8.5 (lOO-SO)
City Manager Ríchard Ambrose advised that Staif had prepared a bi-monthly sta.tus
report of Staff's progress towards the objectivesas9igned by the City Council as of
October S 1, 2002. M of that dare, a total of 12 of 96 o~ectiVð& have been completed.
With respect to high priority objectivC$, a total of 12 out of 77 ba.~ been completed.
There have been 10 major additional assignment<; since April Z002, one of which has
been completed.
The C1P includes 59 prqiects tha.t are funded in IT 2002-03, Four projects have been
completed since the program wa.s approved in J1.U1e of 2002.
The CoUï1.Cil tlurnkcd Staff far the report.
-+
cm COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
November 19. 2002
PAGE 590
:;;.~ 6b 73
. .. ., "J
"~
-'
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 18. 2003
~,\, 6;'~ ,,~
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing, PA 03-002, City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Amendment, First Reading - Amendment to Chapter 8.12, Zoning
Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking
and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. These amendments wiH allow for the
conversion of garages to living spael'; in R-l, Single Family Residential
zoning districts by means of a Conditional Use Permit.
Report Prepared by Jeri Ram, Planning Manager and Marnie R. Wt1jjle,
Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Planning Commission Minutes, February 25, 2003
2. Planning Commission Staff Report, February 25, 2003 (includes
Staff Report and Minutes from the January 28, 2003 Planning
Commission meeting)
3. Planning Commission Resolution 03-04 recommending City
Council approval of an /UIIen drmmt to Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts
and Pennitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-Stre(rt Parking and
Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
4. Ordinance Amending the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open Pubhc Hearing and receive Staff presentation;
2. Queffiion Staff;
3. Take testimony from the Public;
4. Close Public Hearing and deliberate;
5. Waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance to amend the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial impact.
BACKGROUND:
At the November 19,2002 City Council meeting, the City Council directed Staff to review an amendment to
the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regi1lations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Dublin Zoning
Ordinance currently requires that each residential dwelling provide two, off-street parking spaces in an
enclosed garage. This parking requirement prevents the conversion of garages to living spaces unJess two,
enclosed parking spaces can bc provided elsewhere on the lot. ..
______._______________________________________________________~~~~~~M__________________~~__~___~~_~_______
COPIES TO:
ATTACHMENT if) b
At the City Council's dire'·?n. Staff proceeded with !U:l amendm'îto the Dublin Zoning OrClmãnce 'j'o IV)
remove the word "enelosë... ! from the parking requirement. Stah prepared a report and presented thc t"
proposed amendment to the Planning Commission on January 28, 2003, The Planning Commission received r;:j.:)
Staff's presentation, received public testimony, deliberated, and directed Staff to provide alternatives and
studies to ~ddress the follo~ng.concerns regarding the conv~ion of garag:s to living space::. 1) traffic and ~
safety, 2) infrastructun:/servlCe Impacts, 3) scope of conversIOns, 4) aesthetics ·and desIgn standards, and 5)
grand-fathering (Attachment 2, see February 25, 2003 Staff Report Attachment 2 for Jariuary 28, 2003
Planning Commission Minutes).
At the February 25, 2003 Planning Cormnission meeting, Staff returned with a report that addressed the
Planning Comnússion's concerns and presented a solution to address them (Attachment 2, see February 25,
2003 Staff Report), Staff recommended a Conditional Use Permit process, wi'th the Planning Commission
as the decoision making body, to conditionally approve requests to convert garages into living space. In order
for the Planning Commission to approve a Conditional Use Permit, certain findings would have to be made
to address issues such as, compatibility with adjacent properties; adverse impacts to health, safety and
welfare; impacts on property or improvements in the neighborhood; whether the site is physically suitable for
the changes being proposed; and, consistency with development regulations for the zoning district in which
the project is located.
Under the Conditional Use Permit findings, traffic and safety would be reviewed for adverse impacts to, the
subject site; adjacent properties; neighborhood improvements; and, the public health, safety, and welfare.
hnpacts to infrastructure or services, including street sweeping and waste receptacle placement, would be
addressed by requiring that two, off-street parking spaces be provided. The scope of conversions would bc
bound by the development regulations for the R-l Single Famiiy Residential Zoning District, inclu.ding but
not limited to, heights, setbacks, and lot coverage.
The addition of a new fmding, to the conditional use permit fmdings for garage conversions, would address
design and architecture, allowing the Planning Comnrission to review and approve the physical app~arance
of a proposed garage conversion. This new finding would read;
H. Architectural considerations, including the cbaracter, scale and quality of the design, the
architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, bu.ilding materials and colors,
screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and simiiar elements have been
incorporated into the project and as conditions of approval in order to insun:
compatibility of this development with the development's design concept or theme and
the character of adjacent bu.ildings, neighborhoods, and uses.
The issue of grand-fa'thering is not applicabJe to the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments because the
City of Dublin has never allowed the conversion of garages to living space, lfthe propos~d amendments are
adopted, illegcl conversions could be legalized and permitted through the Conditional Use P=it and
Building Permit processes.
On Februazy 25, 2003, the Planning Commission received Staff's presentation, received public testimony,
deliberated, and indicated its support of Staffs recommendation by adopting a Resolution (Attachment 3)
recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance (Attachment 4) to amend Chapter 8.12, Zoning
Districts and Permitted Uses of Lind; Chapt~r 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading RcgulatiollB; and
Chapter 8,100, Conditional Use Permit of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
2
"
Following the Planning Commissi ''f! action, S.t1ff noted ~at. cl~ification' ·'¡1e text of the ne~ finamg tor ?,
design and architecture was needed. The followmg phrase (m Italics) was adc¢d to the new finding: j. tJ 6t/,..I
R For the ccmver'$lon of single family re~del2tial garages to living space, architectural
consideratioIlli, including the character, sca1e and quality of the design, the architectural
relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors, ,.,
By clarifying that the new fmding is for the conversion of single family residentiaJ garages only, other uses
requiring a conditional use permit, i.e. martiaJ arts studios, churches, massage establishments, will not be
subject to the finding on design and arcrulecture. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed clarification.
to the new finding and determined that the change is minor in nature and does not need tQ go back to the
Planning Commission for review.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVJEW;
On August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 rIDding that the Comprehensive Revision
to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8,76, Off-Street Parking And Loading Regulations is excmpt
frorn the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that revising the Zoning Ordinance in this manner would have a significnut effect on the
environment (Section 15061 (b)(3), Various changes to the Zoning Ordinance listed above are proposed
which would not increase or create environmental impacts. These changes will have no environmental
impacts and are also exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be Sl:'ffi
with· certainty that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a significant effect on the
environment
CONCLUSION;
The Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.120) requires that all zoning ordinance amendments be heard by the
Planning Commission and following a public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a written
recommendation to the City Council whether to approve, approve with modifications, or di~approvc the
amendment.
The Planning Commi~sion reviewed the propo~al to remove the word "enclosed" from the off-~treet paJ:king
regulation~ to allow for the conversion of garages to living space and determined that additional studies were
needed in order to address concerns related to, traffic and safety; iDfrastmeture/service impacts; the scope of
conversions; aesthetic and design st<mdards; and, grand~fathering. Staffpresentec1 the Planning Commission
with an alternative that addressed their concerns by proposing a Conditional Use Pennit process tor
reviewing and approving requests to convert garage~ to living space. The Planning Commission heard the
propo~al and recommended that the City Council approve an amendment to Chapter 8.12 Zcning Districts
and Pennitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.] 00
Conditional Use Permit.
Therefore, Staff reeommendsthat the City Council, open the public hearing and receive Staff presentation,
close the public hearing, deliberate, waive the reading, introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 4) to amend the
Dublin. Zoning Ordinance, and continue the public hearing to the April 1 , 2003, City Council Meeting.
3
C::;¿~'ð(;. ~3
Approved (4.12 3DO~40) the WatTant Register :in·the amount of $Z,17B,318.52.
'<&-
PUBLIC HEARING
ÇITY OF DUB~ ZOMNG ORDINANCE ~NDMENT - GARAGE ÇONVERSIONS
7:07 p.m. 6.1 (450-20)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearittg.
PlIUUÚ.J1& Manager Jeri Ram introduced AssociAte Planner Marni¢ Waffle, who presented
the Staff Report and did a PowerPoint presentation.
This is the first reading of an Ordinance proposing amendments to the Dublirt Zoning
OrdD:u1nce, Chapter 8.12 - Zonmg Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76 -
Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.1 00 - Conditional Use
Penuit of the Dublin Zoning Ordi.nanCe. These amendments will allow for the
conversion of garages to living space in R-l, Si11gle Family ~sidential ZonirIg Districts
by means of a. Conditional Use Permit.
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance çurrently requires that each residential dwelling provide
two, off-street parkil'tg spaces in an enclooed garage~ 'This parldng requirement prevents
the conversion of garages to living spaces unless two, enclosed parking !paces ÇaI1 be
provided elsewhere on the lot.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal to remove the word "'enclosed" from
the o£f-s~t parking regulations to allow for the còtlversíon of garages to living; space
and determined that additional studies wra-e needed in order to address. conCerns relAted.
to traffic and safety; infrastructure/ service :impact8j the scope of conversions; aestheiic
and design standards; artd grartd-fathering. St/ .ff presented the Planning Co:mmission
with an alternative that addrell.'ied their concerns by proposing a Conditional Use Permit
process for reviewing and approving requests to convert garages to living space. The
P1a:n:ni1lg Commission heard the proposal and recommended that the City Council
approve art amendment to Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land;
Chapter 8.76 Off-Street parldng and Loadirtg ~gu1ations; and Chapter 8.100
Conditional Use Permit.
CITY COUNCIL MlN UTES
VOLUME 22
REt.tJLAR MEETING
Ma.¡·ch 18,2003
PAGE 143
. ATTACHMENT ,b'b
;).f..D ~ 13,
Bob Fasu1key, Ch.airmlU1 CIÍ the Platttrlng Commissiort tharJ1œd Ståff fen: doing a-
wonderful job on this. They understood the intent. Ms. waffle articulated the:ir list of
conoertls. Conversions will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Cm. Oravetz asked if they ccmsidßred anything other than livirlg space for garage
conversions.
Mr. rasuIkey replied no, they only considered living space.
em. Zilœ asked about a situation whereby two houses created limited. parkin,g they
wou1d say no to a third. He stated he felt this would be unfair treatment.
em. Sbranti aslew abou1 definirtz living space - den, home office, t;':tc.
Ms. Ram stated it is defined by the Building Code.
Cm. Oravetz asked if he wanted to put a woodworking facility in his converted garage,
would this be okay?
Ms. Ram explained that if you wanted to oonvert your garage to It workshop and you did
not have permanent parking, they would not aJlow it.
Cm. Sbranti stated he ielt i1 is highly unlikdy we could end up with three of these in one
C1Ù de sac. TIlt:- Planning Commission could appro~ it if' 'they could show that off !ltreet
parking is avaiLible. It is looked at on a. case-by -case basis.
em. McCormick stated she. was still unclear about the parking, and asked if the garage
conversion could be Ii r~ntal?
Ms. Ram stated it could conceiva.bly be a rental unit. We arc: currently re-eva.luatÍl:lg
and revising our !SeCOnd residential unit ordinanœ 4s the laws haw changed.
Cm. Sbranti talked about a second Ul1it that was recently approvèd on Via Zapata. They
hAd to provide an additiona1 plU'king space.
Ms. Ram advised that stà:ff will take Ii close look at parking requ:irem~nts. TI1e second
unit ordinance stands on its oWn. A .second unit would be considered a full unit with
kitchen and separate entrance.
Cm. McCormick stated she felt this was too ba.d as this makes City streets look bad.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
March 18,2003
PAGE 144
;).. Î 6Q 73
Esther Vizil, Tamarack Driv¢, a.¡¡ked about punitive damages. She stated this was
brought up at an earlier meeting.
BuildirIg Official Gregory shreeve stated an existir1g garage conversion that may be
under code enforcement. The Code requires a minimum double, possible triple of fees.
If someone has converted on their own or it was done by a previOUB owner, and we
fOlUld it today, we could back up two years. The City would have the authority to waive
the f~$ in this case. We have cases on the books that are more than a year old.
City Manager Ambrose clarified they were: us:ing punitive damages as th~ wrong word.
This is additional fees. If someone comes m with plans, our fees are set based on the cog ;
to review the plans. If someone does somet1µng illegally, we have to spend tim~ to ,get it
corrooted. Someone misused t:tw tenn punitive da.tna.ge; it is an actual cost.
Mr. Shreeve sf;a.ted under toda.y's Code, they would have 1:0 remove it.
Ms_ vigil asked who would enforce the a.ðditional fees.
Mr. Shreeve replied it would Þe the Building Division.
Mayor lDckhari: closed the public hearinS-
Cm. Sbranti conunended Staff and the Planrrirl$ COmmission who had two vr::ry
thorough detailed public hearings. He originally thought we oou1d remove the word
enclosed if they have parking. They made several adclilional find.ings. Traffic and safety
iMues a.re addressed and the pl.J1nnins Commission can hear it and consider aU the
options. The City Council will have an opportwùty to appeal. Urtder limited
circumstál1ces, people will be able to convert. He stated he did not anticipate we will
hAve more than one a year.
Cn1. Orave:tz discussed a potential sittta.tion where he converts Ii garage to two additional
bedrooms a.nd rertts them out. Later, he:m.a.y decide to move and rent out all the
bedrooms. He asked if this would be legaL
MAyor Lockhart stated he could also have a situation where they have 4 teenage kids, all
with cars, or an elderly parent living with them. . A neighbor could park in front of your
house and there i$ :nothing you can do about it.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
March 18.2003
PAGE 145
J-ß ~·-¡3.
em. Sbranti stated he felt if you look citywide, ~ few people actually park two cars in
their garage.
em. Z:ika talked about streets in town that are paoked. Once you. allow a garage
oonversion, you. can't LU1convert it. Parking will be made worse.
Cm. McConnick asked about a home office: situation with clients. Is this permitted?
Ms. Ram stated you are allowCd to have iii. limited number of clients; one. or two a week.
We don't regulate parking with hOttle occupation. .
Cm. McCcr1:nick stated her real concern ~ with new constru.ction. A Puyer mAY opt to
use the space as actual living space. The Plannittg Commission would have to take a
look at it.
Ms. Ram stated a developer would have to get a SDR and CUP approved in order to have
nD garage to start out with.
Mayor Lockhart stated. this started out with an older part of town and people sayjng they
would like to convert their garage to an acldítional bedroom for their family. TIús is why
it would be a case~by·case issue.
Cm. Sbranti stated m November there was a.l00pholc that would allow developers to
come forward with a proposal to build units without garage5. We need flexibility and
the CUP process allows this_
em. Oravetz asked if the P1a.nning Commission could legally a.sk questions ahout why he
is ccmvertittg his garage.
City Attorney Silver stated the Zoning Ordma.nce requires certain findings for a CUP. It
must be compatible with other land uses and transportation within tl1e oommunity. The
u.o;e will be dictated by what you convert it to.
Cm. oravetz stated if you a.re the first on your street or secCl!1.d, you CUI get it approved.
Does th~ third guy have any legal rights to say we're discriminRting against him?
Crn_ Zil:a stated it is not a. kg¡11 plliying field for everyone. If you have a homeowners
association, thoy won't allow it. The people that live in San Ramon V1llage coulcl do it if
they got a CUP and the rest of the community can't, for the most part.
CiTY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGiJLAR MEETING
March 18,2003
PAGE 146
2J.? 6ð 73
Cm. Sbranti pointed out the fa.ct that different homeowner associations have different
$1Údelines.
Cm_ Zika. stated he felt if we clwt,g:¢ out' cm:linaTIce. we may be deva1ui71g a houst:
þecause there are too many cars on the str8et.
Cm. Sbranti stated he did not believe this will put more c.us on the street. How many
people will rush to convert their garage? He felt it will be rare to actually see this. This
proce~ bas enough checks and balances built in and he again stated he will be surprised.
to see more than one a. year.
Ms. Ra.:m addressed the home occupation parking question and advised that the Code
says you could have up to 5 cars a day visit your houæ. You have to have additional
parkinz to the 2 required by residents.
Ms. Silver looked at the Variance provision. A Variance can be grated for specific
reasons. but she did not feel this falls into this. The City Council could specify if they did
not want a Varia.nce considered.
Cm. McCormick clarified that an unenclosed parking space i.$ a concrete slab?
Staff responded this was correct.
Cm. McCormick aslœd íf they couki limit this ordinance to apply west of Dougherty
Road?
Ms. Ram stated there a.rc rom!:: lots in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area where you .
oould have additional units, in addition toa garage. There are :¡orne lots where garage
oonversions cotùd work.
em. McConnick stated she sometimes hates the way our ~ts look and she :felt this will
only increase the number and add cars.
On motion of Crn. Sbranti., (leConded by Ms.yor Lockhart, and by majority vote, the
cmrncil waived the rea.dingand INTRODUCED the OrdinAnce to amend the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance.
Cm. Zika and Cm. Oravetz; voted in opposifion· to the motion.
"*"
CiTY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLVME 22
REGULAR MEETING
March 18.2003
PAGE 147
_ 5°6613
- - - .....,..,..
File # DElJØJ[QH¿¡[Q]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 1, 2003
SUBJECT;
Public Hearing, P A 03-002, City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Amendment, Second Reading - A.n:i.endment to Chapters 8.12, 8.76,
and B.100 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. These amendments will
allow for the conversion of garages to living space in R-l, Single
Family Residential zoning districts by means of a Conditional Use
Pe.rmit.
Report Prepared by: Jeri Ram, Planning Manag¡¡zyn!!_Mamie R.
Waffle, Assj.~tanf Planner ~
ATTACHMENTS;
1. Ordinance Amending the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
2. City Council Agenda Statement (w/o attachments) dated March 18,
2003
RECOMMENDA TIOfYlíN: 1. Open Public Hearing and receive Staff presentation;
2. Question Staff;
\. 3. Take testimony from the Public;
4. Close P\lblic Hearing and deliberate;
5. Waive the reading and adopt the Ordinance (Attachment 1) to
amend the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT; No financial impact.
BACKGROUND:
At the November 19, 2002 City Council meeting, the City Council directed Staff to review an amendment 10
the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance
currently requires that each residential dwelling provide two, off-street parking spaces in an enclosed garage.
This parking requirement prevents the conversion of garages to living spaces unless two, enclosed parking
spaces can be provided elsewhere on the lot. At the City Council's direction, Staff proceeded with an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to remove the word "enclosed" from the parking requirement.
On January 28, 2003, Staff presented a report to the Planning Commission to amend the off-street parking
regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Comnússion received Staff's presentation,
reGeived public testimony, deliberated, and directed Staff to provide alternatives and studies to address tbe
following concerns regarding the conversion of garages tc living space; 1) traffic and safety,· 2)
infrastructurefservice impacts, 3) scope of conversions, 4) aesthetics and design standards, and 5) grand-
fathering.
___~________~______..~_______W_______._.____________R.__________~~__._____~____________________~._____.___ø~_
COPIES TO:
In Ho~se Distf'
, .
ATTACHMENT to c-
31 Db 13
Staff returned to the Planning Commission on February 25,2003 with a report that addressed the Planning
COmnllssion's concerns and recommending a Conditional Use Permit process, with the Planning
Commission as the decision making body, to conditionally approve requests to convert garages into living
space. The Planning Commission received Staffs presentation, received public testimony, deliberated,
and indicated its .support of Staffs recommendation by adopting a Resolution recommending that the City
Council adopt an Ordinance to amend the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
At the March 28, 2003 City Council meeting, the City Council introduced an Ordinance to amend the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance to allow for the conversion of residential garages to living spaces. After the public
hearing, the Ordinance was scheduled for a second reading to be held at the April I, 2003 City COUllcil
meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW;
On August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 fmding that the Comprehensive Revision
to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking And Loading Regulations is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that revising the Zoning Ordinance in tllis manner would have a significant effect on the
environment (Section 15061(b)(3). Various changes to the Zoning Ordinance listed above are proposed
which would not increase or create environmental impacts. These changes will have no environmental
impacts and are also exempt from the Califonria Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it Cilll be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a. significant effect on thc
environment.
CONCLUSION;
The City Council diÌected Staff to prepare an Ordinance to amend the Dublin Zoning Ordinance by removing
the word "enclosed" from the parking requirement in order to allow for the conversion of residential gamges
to living space. In accordance with the procedures for amendillg the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter
8.120), Staff presented a report to tbe Planning Commission and following a public hearing, the Planning
Commission directed Staff to conduct additional studies on the impacts of allowing garage conversioIL~.
Staff then presented the Planning Cornnússion with an alternative to address their concerns by proposing a
Conditional Use Permit process for reviewing and approving requests to convert garages to living space. The
Planning Commission heard the proposal and adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council
approve the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the conversion of residential gmage~ to living
space.
At a public hearing held on March 1&, 2003, the City Council introduced an Ordinance to amend the
Zoning Ordinance (Chapters 8.12; 8.76 and 8.100) to alJow for the conversion of garages to living spaces
in R-l, Single Family Residential zoning districts by means of a Conditional Use Pennit.
RECOMMENDATION;
Staff recommends that the City Council, open the public hearing and receive Staff presentation, question
Staff, take testimony from the Public, close the public hearing and deliberate, waive the reading, and adopt
the Ordinance (AttachrneJJt 1) to amend the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
..
2
3d- fr) 7~
. _.0 .J
. ,
-
PUBLIC HEARING
ÇU'Y OF DUBI.11'T ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PA 05-002
7:36 p.m. 6.1 (450-20)
Mayor lDckhart opened the public hearing.
P1anni11g Manager Jeri Ram presented the staff Report, indicating that this is the second
readin:; of at1 Ordinance, which would amend the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Chaptor
8.1 Z - Zoning Districu ano. Permitted U~s of Land, Chapter 8.76 - Off-Street Parking ,
and Loading Regulations, and Clulpter 8.100 - Conditional Use Permit of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance. These amendments will allow for the conversion of garages to liv:ing
space in R-l, S:ingle~Family Residential Zoning distriots by means of a Conditional Use
p~t. .
. John Collins !ltated he had never heard the first I'e$d1ng of this Ordinance, so questioned
how this could be the second rea.ding.
Mayor Lockhart advised tha.t the first reading of the proposed Ordinance hBd taken
place at the last Council meeting.
City Attorney Silver cxplamed that the Council waives the reading of the Ordirumce,
rather than reading the Ordinance aloud in full. A copy of the proposed Ordinance is
posted and is available to the public.
Mayor Locldutrt closed the public hearing.
em. Oravetz sta.ted the last time they ....oted on this, it WM 3-2. (Zjka/Oravetz opposed).
After mIlCh considera.tion from both poínts of 'vi.ew, :indicated that he would still oppose
the proposed OrdinB.noe.
Cm. Sbranti stated he did not feel the proposed Ordin.i1nce would cause oxtra parking on
the street and cause a widespread problem.
Cm. Zika. stated he is also against the Ordinance and was concerned about parking
problems. He referenced a new law coming in July, whereby without any pemrits, any
house can put on a. second unit and the City Cá1:tflot deny them or cannòt require them to
ha.ve a parking spot.
CITY COUNCIL MiNUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
April 1, 2003 ^'TIACHMENT ..r;; G
PAGE 205 11.
:3 ~öh-r~
, c..·
Mayor Locklurt disagreed with that interpretation Of the propö8ed new lAw, and ·mttêd
that the City Council OM review it.
Cm. McCormick stated she is still not fully comfortable with the proposed OrdUutnce,
but she has heard from people who have said they converted their garages in the 1B.st 1 S
yœrs and none of them rent the units; most use it for a "granny."
On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. $brand, and by 3/2 vote (01"a~tz/Zîka
oppose), the CoLUlcil waived. the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO.4 - D3
AM=NDING CHAPTER 8.12 ZONING DISTRICTS AND
PERMITTED USES OF LAND, CHAPTER 8.76 OFF-STREET PARKING AND
LOADING REGULATIONS, AND CHAPTER 8.100 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
OF THE DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE
....
PUBLlC HEARING
WEEDS AND COMBUSTIBLE REFUSE ABATEMENT ORDER
7:49 p.m~ 6.2 . (540~5D)
l\1.ayoJ':' Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Fire Marshal ThereM }ohn$On presented the StAff Iœport, advisb:\g that in accordanoo
with Resolution NO~ 31-03, the City Council declared tha.t thc;Jre is a. puÞlic nuisance
created by weeds and combustJ.'ble debris growing, a.ccwnulating upon the streets,
sidewalks and property within the City of Dublin. T1ùs public hearing will allaw
property owners to present objections to the abatemen~ order.
Cm. Sbrantiasked'howmany notices were sent out.
lvü: Johnson s1a.ted normally about 3qO notices, but this year a litt1e less.
No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to tlûs issue.
.Mayor Lockhart closed the publiç h(:arlng. .
OTY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
April 1 , 1003
PAGE 206
.. '11."' ...:.'"
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 19, 2005
3'"1 CJO 1?
SUBJECT:
Discussion on GlII'alle Conversion Ordln.ance f'i/
Report Prepared ry Jeri Ram. Planning Manager"",
ATIACHMENTS;
1. Çity of Dublin Ordinance No. 04-03 Amendment to Chaptcr
8.12, Zoning Distric1ß and pl'lT/1ítted Uses of Land; Chapter
8.76, Off.St:reet Parking and Loadir1g Regulations; and Chapter
8.100, Conditional Use Permit of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
adopted on April I. 2003.'
2. Staff Report and Minutes for City CounciJ Meetings:
11.. November 19, 2002
b. March) S, 2003
c. April 1, 2003
3. Staff Report and Minutes for Planning CDJDIIrÎssion Meetings;
a. January 28. 2003
b. Febn¡.!I!)' 25, 2003
II Minutes for May 3, 2005, City Council Hearina on Appeål of
p A 04-036.
RECOMMENDATION: (.7 101... 1. Reccive Staff'prosentation.
. ~ 2. . Provide Staff direction.
FIN,¡\NClAL STATEMENT: No finllncial impact.
. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Backgrowul:
At the November 19, 2002 City Council meeting, the City Council directed Staff to nwiew an ameodment to
the Qff.S(rf)et Parlàng and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. At that time, the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance required that each residential dwelling provide two, off-street patking spaces in an
enclosccl garage. This parking requirem.ent pr=vented the conveisi.on of garages to living spaces unless two,
enclosed patking spa.ces could be provided elsewhere on the lot (AttacJ:m¡ent 21'1.).
..
At the City Council's direction, Staff proceeded with an amendment to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to
remove the word "enclosed" from the parking reqnirement. Staff prepared a report and presented the
proposed amendment to the Planning Commission on January 28, 2003 (Attachment 3.1'1.).' The Planning
Commission directc:è Staff to provide alternatives and studies to address the followinli concerns regarding
the conversion of garages to living space: 1} traffic and safety, 2) infrastructt=fservíce impact.'¡, 3} scope of
conversions, 4) aesthetics and design standards, and 5) grand-fathering.
______..._...____...___________iIII____..-___________·__I'I'----------
COPIES TO:
".
-.
ITEM NO.
ATTACHMENT bd'
...i..J
"'~
("\ ..... .... .... ... ... r\ . gE 6bì3
Att:lwPebrwuy2S, 2003Placníri¡;;".:.onunission mcc:ting"Staffretumedv.ccoJ 11 report that addressed the
PIIl!1IlingCorIlInission'~ooncems IlIld reœmmenc:ledn CQ1!Iiitiorial Use PcrlIlitproces8 with the PImming
Commission as ilicdecilrion.mäkinglrody. In otderfor the P1amûng Comnrlssion toapproye.aConditionai
Use Permit, certain findings would have te be made to IIt!c\rQss issues such as compatJ."bility with adjacent
properties: adverse impa.ctsto Þe¡iltl1,sQ,fetyand welÍIIrC; impQ,ctBon prQPertY or improvements in the
neighborhood; whether the site ispllyBically suitable futthe changes being propolõed; and,consistency with
development reguÙltioDS for the zoning dismct in wbich the project is located (Attaclunent 3b).
Addiiional1y. Staff recommended that a. new conditional use p=it finding be added for residential garage
conversions:
H.Archjt~tur Jlc.onsiderlltions,includiug t4e character. sCBlesnd quality.ofthc de¡¡jgn, the
arclútectw'al relation$hip\Wth. the. site øndother buildinSll, building materials and
colors, soreening of exterior appurtenances, extorior lighting,.nnd swibr e1cmentshave
been mcolporated into the project and as conditions of approva1 in order to insure
compatibility.Qfthis development withthe>d~elopment~sdesignconoept or theme and .
the character of adjaoont buildings. ncighborhoods, and~.
The Planning CO!D1I1ission adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council· adopt an Ordinance
that would allow garage conversions with a conditional use permit process that included the new finding
referenced above.
On March 18, 2003 and Apri11, 2003, the City Coun(,,'Îl I!eld public hearing!! on this item and approved
Ordirumce No.04-03 ¡¡mending the zoning Ordinance and thereby IIllowing for garage conversions with a
conditional use permit to bc heard by the Planning Conunission (Attachm.cntl! 2b, 2c and 1).
Pel'ltJitled GørtJ-ge Converswns:
Since the Zoning ordinance was amended in April, 2003, Staffhas processed six applications for garage
conversions; four have been approved by the P11IDIIing CorrImission; one denied by the PlllIlIling
Commission; and, one approved by the Planning Commission and overturned on appeal by the City
Cou.ncil.
The following Chart provides information regarding these conversions:
Item Address and Application Approva1lDenial and . NotelJon Project
Number Nt). of Annlicadon Date
1. 7420 Tamarack Drive (P A Approved by PllIIlIIing P artia.1 conversion with existing
02-039) Commission on garage door to mnain.
5/27/03
2. 11968 West Vomac Road Dc::nied by Planning Denial based on parking concerns
(P A 03-029) Commission on 7/8/03 and the neighborhood ac::sthetics that
would be changed by removal of
garage door on third car garage in Ii
neighborhood comprised ofmost1y
thrc::e-oar J!;arages.
3. 7342 Dovor Lane CPA 03- Approved by Planning Partial conversion with existing
035) Commission on garage door to remain.
8/26/03
4. 7944 Oxbow Court (P A03- Approved by Planning Full conversion with removl11 of
059) Co=ission on garage door and saw cut in drivew~
10/28/03 to allow landscåninlt.
,
. ,
6.
Addreøøand Ap'j:ation
N o.of A ~tI¡hi
7052 Amador Valley Blvd,
(P A 04-(64)
7697 Canterbury Lane (PA.
04"0~6)
ApprovaIlDeJtial and
Date
. 'Approved by Planning
COIfunissionon '
3/22/05
Approved by Plsmring .
Commissiollo!1
3/22105; Decied on
appeal by City
Council 0Ïl513/0S
r·' :es on Project
.'. ..)'~
ltent
Number
5.
3w 6b 1:;
pllf'tial coµvcrsion witbexistîng
. g!lI'qedoorto mnBÏn.
Fwlconversion withrcmloval of
gàtagc door.
On May 3, 2005, the City Council heard an appeal of the Planning COrmnission approval of a proposed
conditionw usc:!,=itforagarage conversion at 7/597 CanterburYLaI\e (PA 04.(36). Duringthe
deliberation on that appes-I. tbe City Council requestciHhat ardtembe placed on 11 future agenda to
discuss gomge conversions in genernl (Attachment 4).
In addition to theprojedtslistedin the ubove t!ible, Staff is =tly processing one conditional UBC
permit for n garage conversion. It is antici 'Jatedthattheproject will be heard by the Planning
Commission within the next two months.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffreconm:lI:mds. that the City Council receive the Staff presentation and provide Staffwith direction.
3î Db '13
Mayor Lockhart stated she felt that 8S businesses renOV'ate, other businesses will take a
look. She doesn't see a need to tie this money up unnecessarily. It will ha.ve to be the
building owner, not just one tenant. She stated she was all for sayiU8 adios to the
program.
Cm, McCormick stated she felt we may be ahead of the curve. When big cha11geS start
corning to that district, they will have to do something or lose business.
Mr. Ambrose stated the question is do you think the program is viaÞle? At wme point jn
the future if it becomes viable, the City Council can reallocate the funds. It can be
revisited in 4 or 5 years or whenever necessary_
Mayor Lookhart stated we could take the money and do some improvements ourselves on
the street, in the streetscape or landscaping, etc. We can be creAtive.
Mr. Ambrose advised. that we reœi\TOO notice from MTC that they will fund up to $3
million in projects the City iillmtified. Many were streetscape and landscaping projects.
Mr. Foss stated he will let the City Co\.U\cil know if he gets several people inquiring.
On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Mayor Lockhart, and by unanimous vote,
the Council agreed to defer action on this type of program until there is interest in the
business community.
.
DISCUSS1QNPruäAJl.GE CONVERSION ORDINANC£
8:02 p,m, 8.1 (430-20)
Planning Manager Jeri Ram presented the Staff Report.
In April of 2003, the City Council amended the Zoning OrdinaJ:1ce to allow for garage
conversions with a conditíonal use permit to be heard by the Planning Commission.
Since that time, Staff has processed six applications for garage conversions. Four were
approved by the Planning COmmission; one was denied by the Planning Commission; and
one approved by the Plannins Commission was overturned on appeal by the City
Council. There is currerttly one garage conversion beiflg looked at.
During the deliberation of the above appeal, the City Council requested that Staff place
an item 011 a future asenda to discuss garage conversiot1s iIi general.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
July 19, 200S
PACK 293 ATTACHMENT :GoI
3ß útJ 13
Staff requested that the Council provide direction.
Cm.McCormick asked about the one in the pipeline and if any action tonight would
affect that one.
Ms. Ram advised that any action tonight making changes would have to go bad to the
Plannjng Commi8$îon and the1l to the City Council for public hearings.
Mayor Lockhart stated she felt the report received prove:; that the Ordinarlce works.
Some are approved and :;orne are not. If you change it so there is nO opportunity at all,
there is not anyone form that fit:; every home in our City. 'I11.eCUP process works. This
Ì1; a chance anybody takes when they go for a CUP_
Vm. Zika stilted he felt for the same reasons, this is not working. Once the conversion is
done, iFs done. If someone moves in with several vehicles, this creates problems. Houses
cot.tld turn over at any time. He has been against this Ordinance because it looks at a
property at a moment in timet and it can chMge.
Cm. Oravetz stated he thought there would be a lot more conversions than have
ccourted. He felt the aesthetics of the neighborhood can be changed and then people
move- He is not again:;t garage conversions, but felt it is somewhß.t like false advertising.
He will again support Vm. Zilœ.'s point of view.
Cm. McCormick stated she supported this and still believes in the concept. It provides a
real service for a middle income family. This only affects a small portion of our
community for people to add some space to their house. If someone wants to bt'ing their
older parents in, this is a way to do it. In concept she really supports this; however, she
can't quite seem to get around the CUP. The guy who came before them, she felt it was
unfair. If you really do everything ri,ght, why do they have to come þefoœ another body
and then get shot down. Those older neighborhoods have been changed over and over
~. She supports the concept, but not the Ordinance the way it is written. We pride
ou.rselves on fairnt";Ss and to her this was not fair. People who obey the rules and do it
right should be able to go ahead and get their conversion without risk. She asked if we
can change the appeal process.
Mr. Ambrose stated the language and required finding:¡ has. a certai.n level of subjectivity.
The iHnguage was originally to be a way of providing flexibility. What loolc$ good to
Sta.ff may not look good to the Planning Commission or the City Council, or vice versa..
..,
c!;
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGill.AR MEETING
July 19,2005
PAGE 294
3Cì Gb 1'3
City Attorney Elizabeth Silver stated the City Council could change the Ordinance to take
out t~ CUP requirement if they wanted. to. They have some discretion and can make it a
matter of rights.
Mayor Lockhart suggested saying something like, if you have room for x number of cars
off street and you retain the look of the home, you can automa.tically get it approved.
Ms. Silver stated the grey area seems to be whether the garaze door remains as It 84t'age
door, or hAs landscaping in front of it. They could say the garage door stays period.
Mayor Lockhart clarified that her point was just that ¡}¡ey have a garage door and looks
like every other house with a garage door in the neighborhood.
Cm. Ilildenbrand stated she has many concerns with this. She supports individuals wìth
whatever needs they may have. One concern being the parking issue. If it gets sold, how
can people deal with it in the future. The majority of people don't use their garage for
car¡¡. 'I'he other issue is the appeal process. If we keep this Ordinance in place, she
would like to see it say you must keep the garage door in place. She could support this,
but she has more concern over the parking issue and what happens in the future when
those people move out.
Mayor Lockhart stated she did not feel this is a big enough issue to sink anyone from
using their garage ¡¡pace a,s an office or other use. There are times when it's really
important for people to use that space for their home. If they don't have the space for
their cars off street and if they ca.n't leave the garage door, then don't a.pply for garage
ccmversions.
Cm. Oravetz commented on a scenario of putting in a pad beside a house, and asked if
this would require a curb cut.
Mr. Shreeve stated this would be considered flat work and no permit would be required.
Cm. Oravetz discussed cars out in the street and off-street parking requirements.
Cm. McCot<mick stated she felt somehow some way, we should come back with a better
Ordinance.
Mayor Lockhart asked why not talk about châl\8Íng it instead of throwing it out.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
July 19,2005
PAGE 295
Lj-o GQî3
Cm. Hildenbrand stated we need consi5tency. We need. to send a m~3lIge to the Planning
Commission that garage doors stay and say this is what the City Council has in mind.
Homes would remain the same outside, but changes could be made inside. The appeal
process will kill a lot of people's plans after they've spent money.
Mayor Lockhart asked why not say change the Ordinance to preserve the integrity of the
home as it stands before you convert: it and you must provide a minimum of 2 spaces off
street. Say it still has to be a house with a garase door.
Vm. Zika. stated he felt this is still su~ective. Repeal the Ordinance and have Staff work
ou.t an Ordinance that is not subjective.
Cm. Hildenbrand asked what type of mechanism or how would an individual go about
reporting someone who has 6 œrs on the street? What recourse do they have? .
Staff mponded as long as the C£I.I'S are licensed. and moved regularly, none.
Cm. Hildenbtand stated a lot of people can go to their homeowners associations, but
what about those who live in an area where there is no HOA? The aesthetics of their
street is just as importa.nt as the aesthetics of their house. When you have multiþle cars
on the street, some of which could be in the garage, it becomes an issue. Some people
can't get their garbage picked up because the garÞage company can't get to it.
. Mayor Lockhart stated part of this is just being responsible neighbors.
Cm. Oravetz felt parking on the street on a regular day is problematic and you then
throw in converted garages and you have a bigger problem.
Mayor Lockhart asked if we could request that people who want to do this have to get
comments from their neighbors just like someone would have to get permission from a
HOA. Can we require this?
Mr. Ambrose discussed another city that had a requirement for a filming permit that
hOntes within a 300' radius had to sign the permit. He has not seen this used in this type.
of t1 situation. This: oou]d create neighborhood conflict if one neighbor doesn't want to
sign.
City Attorney Silver stated she hàSn't seen this done in this context. She would want to
take a look at this from a legal standpoint.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
July 19. 200S
PAGE 296
Lj \ Db í3
Cm. McCormick asked. if there has been neighbors responding to the conversion:; we've
al1owed-
On motion of. Vrn. Zika., seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by majority vote, the Council
asked Staff to prepare an Ordinance repealing the existing Ordinance. Mayor Lockhart
voted in opposition to the motion.
Cm. McCormick stated her vote was with a stipulation that we come back with another
Ordinance.
Cm. McCormick made a motion to Þring back an Ordinance with bard and fa:;t rules of
what the-ycw and can't do. She also doesn't like the appeal process. Look at a tighter
Ordinance. She was uncertain about having the garage door on or off. She wants
something people can feel comfortable with.
Cm. Hildenbrand ugge:¡ted we include looki11g into a sign off by the neighbors. She
supported havinggarsge doors in place, and deal with on-site pArking.
Mr. Ambrose a:¡ked about the CUP pr0ce55 and if they lltin wanted an appeal to City
Council.
Ms. Silver clarified that the motion was to have Staff bring back something to repeal the
Ordinance. Cm. McCormick's comments would relate to bringing back an Ordinance in
another form.
Mr. Ambrose asked if they want two reports at the same meeting?
Cm. McCormick stated she would like to see them back to bá.ck.
Mr. Ambrose advised that they can repeal the existing Ordinance, but that a new one
wouldn't be effective until it has two readings.
Cm. McCormiak stAted she would Hke them to be at the same time.
Mr. Antbrose advised the City Councíl that we are severely deficient with regard to
Plannirlg Staff right now_ This project would compete with all the other plannil'l,g
projects on the board.
Mayor Lockhart stated she would hate to see this become a marathon project, especially
for the community.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLlJME 24
REGULAR MEETING
July 19. 2005
PAGE 297
112 ~ 1)
Cm. McCormick suggested they give it thl!: priority it needs and get on with it.
On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by MAyor Lockhart, and by majority vote, the
Council directed Staff to report back with a draft Ordinance which would considl!:r
elements such as: 1) amount of off-site parkins; Z) subjectivity; 3) ß4rage door h:w to
rerna.in; 4) look: at legality of sign-off of radius of neighbors; 5) scope of the appe.a1
process; and 6) whether conversion requires a CUP. Vm. Zika and Cm. Oravetz voted in
opposition to the motion.
..
CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMBNf OF AN ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE
:ro THE 'OO-V.AILEV ~ POLICY ADVŒQRY CO.M.M1'JTEE
8:56 p.m. 8.2 (110-30)
Pu bHc Works Director Melissa Morton presented the staff Report.
The Tri-Valley Trianzle Study will develop a long-range transportation plan for
improvements on 1-580,1-680 and route 84. In February 2005, Mayor Lockhart and
Cm. Hildenbrand were appointed to the Policy Advisoty Committee. Along with the
Cities of Livermore and Pleasa.nton, as well as Alameda County, each jurisdiction wilJ
l10W consider appointing an alternate to thîs Committee to ensure representation at all
meetings. .
Mayor Lockhart asked about the voting situation if the alternate was there but neither of
the representatives were able to attend. She then nominated Cm. MçCormick as
alternate.
On motion of Mayor Lockhart, $eCOßded ÞJ Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote, the
council appointed Cm. McCormick to serve as alternate on this Committee.
..
9TH£1 øuSINESS
8:58 p.m.
Mr. Ambrose advised that 115 pArt of the long range agenda. review, currently we don't
have iterns for the September 6th City Council me.etíng and asked if the City Council W8.5
interested in canceling the first September meetin,g. This îs the Tuesday following Labor
Day.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
July 19, 2005
PAGE 298
AGENDA STATEMENT Lj 3 ?J;() T~
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 28, 2003
SUBJEcr:
P A 03-002 City of Dublin. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amendment to
Chapter g,76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Municipal
Code (Zoning Ordinance) ,...1/^
Prepared by Jen Ram, Planning Manager ur-
ATTACHMENTS:
L Novembor 19, 2002, City Council Agenda Statement
2. November 19, 2002, City Council minutes on Report on Residentìal
Off-Street Parkin¡
3. Resolution recommending the City Council adopt tIlt; ordìnance:
amonding the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinanco)
4. Ordinanco amending Chapter 8,76 Off-Street Parking and Loading
Regulations of the Dublin M\UJicipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION: ].
2.
3.
4.
5.
Open Public Hcvjng and receive Staff presentation;
T like testimony:from the Public:
Question Staff' and the Public;
Close Public Hel'ring ami deliberate;
Adopt resolution (Atta.chmru 3) recommending the City Council
adopt the Ordinance (Attachment 4) to amend the Dublin Municipal
Code.
BACKGROUND:
At the Novembi!I 19,2002, City Council meetillg, Staff brought forth III! itern at the rc:quest of
Counciitnembcr Tim Sbronti to conwder modification of the City's enclosed parking requirement for single-
familyresìdential dwelling units by ~1iminating the requirement for two enclosed. off-street Pl!Iidn~ spaces
and requiring ooly two off·streert parkin¡¡:: spaces {AttacWnent I}. The P'F'POse of the modifications would be
to allow conversation ofgarage:.to provide additional living space in single-family I'I!sidential dwellîng
units.
SWf's ro=port reconµnerni.ed that if the City Council would Hke Staff10 work cn the amendment, additional
studies and information would be provided in a furthc:r report. The City Council rece:ived Staffs
presentation, deJibcrated and directed Staff to prepare the amenclment without the additional studies
(AttaclJment 2).
Amendment:
Attached is a draft Ordinance that would implemont the City Council's direction. In essence, the Ordinance
contînues to require two off-street parking spaces per single-family residential unit. However, it =Oves the
requirement to 1!1I¢los¢ fhe spaces. Therefore. if ¡¡¡omeone wishes to modify tbeir garage so that they would
.......---------
------------
---
COPIES TO: In House Distribution
ITEM NO.......
"'-
G,II'MI2OOa~C ...~ ....".DOC
ATTACHMENT 7-
· .. 'i L-\~ !Jb 13 .:
not be able to park vehicles In tt. tiwy may be able to do so. In order to convert the garage, the app1ica,¡¡t
v.uuld have to show that thßy can provide the required parking else.wbere in IU1 approved area on the lot. For
example, if they can provide two full-size parking splICes on the driveway, that would satisfY the regulaiiol1B.
In addition, they would have to ç.omply with all other City regulations (building pernút. eto.).
Environmental Rrni/!w:
On AugLlSt 1 S, 1997, the: City Council adopted Resolution 103·97 finding that the Comprehensive Revision
to the Zoning Ordiœnee, ¡pclnding Chapter 8.76, Off-StTeet Parking And Loading Regulations i$ exempt
from the Ca1ifomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It can be seen with certainty that there is no
po~sibility that revi~ins the Zoning Ordinance in this mamler would have a significant dftct on the
environment (Section IS061(b)(3). Various changes to the Municipal Code listed above axe ptOpos.ed which
would Dot illcreue or create environmental impacts. These changes will have no environmental iJnpactß and
i\I'I: aisocxempt from th~ California Envirorunental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be se=n with
~rtainty that there is no poss!bili ty that sucb amendments would have a ~isJillicant effect on the
enmtltlJllmt.
CONCLUSION:
The Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.(20), requires that all zoning ordinance lII'Ilendments (su~h!lS this
proposed amc:ndmcm to the Off~Street Parking Regulations) be heard by the Plarm!n¡¡ Commission and
fonowing a pubHe hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a written reconunendation to the City
Council whether to appr<rve, approve with ¡nodi5catiOlls or disapprove the amc:ndIru;nt.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommomds that the Planning Commìssion open the public hearing and œoeive Staffl'r'esentatiøn, take
testimony from the public, question Staff and the public, close the public hearing. deHbe:rete and adopt
resolution (AttaChment 3) recommending that the City Council adopt the Ordinance (A~bme ]t 4) to
amend the Dublin Municipal Code.
2
1.\5 ùb~l~-:··'
PUBLIC HEARING
8.1 FA 03.002 - Zoning Ordinance Amel'lcbnent to Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and
Loading Regulations
Ms. Ram gave II background of the item, noting that the City Council had directed Staff to present
to the Commission an item that would consider II modification of the Qty's enclosed parking
requirements for single-family residential dwelling unit:>. She explained that by eliminating the
requirement for two enclosed off-street parking spaces and requiring only two off-street parkIDg
spaces,. garage oonversions would be possible.
Ms. Waffle presented II Power point pn!s!!Il.tation of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to
the off-str~et parking and loading regulations, and discussed the reasons that the conununity may
benefit from allowing garage oonversions, as well some of the issues that may arise as II result of
garagé o:m.vèrsioru::.
Ms. Ram reminded the Commission that in order to implement an ordinance change, the Planning
ComlIÙssjon would need to rrw.ke a reçommendation to the City Council, for approval or approval
with changes or conditions. She added that the Çomnùssion çould rerommend to not approve the
ordinance change.
Cm. King asked if the only change in the proposed Zoning Ordinllnce as presented was e1iminatinb
the word "enclosed" !rOD1 thete:.o::t.
Ms. Ram stated that the change wa~ aloo in the qualifier In the chart of the ordinance, explaining
that the ordirumœ was changed in hvo places.
Cm. Nüsa:r asked questions about the off-street parking that would be required if the garage
conversion was. allowed, ami how the on-street parking would be impacted.
Ms. Ram exp1ained that if A homeowner wanted to convert the garage, they would be required to
show th~t they had two ful1-size off-street parkins spaces, which transliltes Into using the ctriveway
in most cases. She added that by eliminating the garage ¡!.¡o a potential place for parking vehicles, a
multi-car £arIÛly wuld potentially use the street as well to park their vehicles.
Cm. Nas$ar asked if there have been studies to predict use of the sÞ'eet £01: parking if the enclosed
garage-parking requirement was eliminated.
¡pW""IÎ1Iß Co'llZmis.rÎim
~r!Mleti7IfJ
10
Janllllry 2J, 2003
ATIACHMENT 1 ~
YLo'(JQ--t3
Ms. Ram answered that there have been no studies, and. that it would be hard. to prEKlíct since it
would vary from person to person.
Cm. Kmg askl;'d if the mgulations were changed. what the impact would be to the HomeoWTIere'
As¡;ociation regulations that IrÙght apply.
Ms. Ram stated that the City does not enforce HomeOWl'\~s' AsroctatÎon regulations.
em. JeMings expresse.d concern that the issue at hand was removing the word "enclosed" from the
parking regulation:¡, but that the issue appeared to actually be an issue of garage conversions. She
noted that these were separate issues and asked how these issues wo\.11d come 11t\der the same
ordinance.
Ms. Ram answered that the aty Council had recommended that Staff remove the word "enclosed"
for the purpose of allowhig· garage conversions. and that the presentation by Staff Wa:> to provide a
balaru.--ed view of the issue.
em. Machtmes asked it there are currently any regulations or restrictions for on-street parking,
sum as how much i:ime, how many cars, ch;:.
Ms. Ram stated that there are no restrictions except in Eastern Dublin where some planned
developmertt!< allow parking only on one side of the street due to the :oarrow streets_
em. Fasulkey asked if a pon had been conducted of other dties policies for garage conversion.
Ms. Waffle noted that there had not been specific: studies, but that based on the information she had
reœived whíle in contact with other dries in California. the majority do not allow g<11'age
conversÍon UfÛess the parking requirement can be met.
Cm. King asked if the cities that alJow conversion (when the parking rllquirement was met)
required design startdards.
Ms. Waffle stated that she did not have sufficient infom<ation to answer that question. but knew of
one dry that allowed garage conversions when the parking requirement was met that had des:ign
standard requIrements as well_
(l!Ûl7Ining """mission
'l1J$lÚl1.r !Muting
11
JlJmlIJ.ry 28, 2003
41 00/3
Ms. Ram stated that if design standMds were a ronœm" the Commission could reccnunend a
Conditional Use Permit (CU?) process that would allow all conversions to be heard by the PlarmirT-
CommissiOIl.
Then were questiQns and discussion between Staff IU\d the Commission zegarding spedfics of the
parking ordinance, the consequences of the proposed change, and the ~ssible impilet to the
community.
Cm. FasuIkey noted for the record that the City received 131etters from citizens of Dublin who
were in favor of the amendment and requested that the parking ordinance be amended to allow
garage conversion and non~em:losed parking. He theI1 opened the public hearing and aakecl if
anyone from the pubUc wished to address the Commission.
There were four citizens who addressed the Commission in favor of amending the parking
ordinilnce t:o allow garage conversion.
Ms. Esther Vigil stated that she ha.s been a homeowner in Dublin since 1979, and has converted a
portion of her garage for a dark room. She noted that she did not obtain permits at the time to save
on costs, and had been advised that if the ordinance were not amended to allow gaxage
conversions, she would be required to take down her dark room or apply for a variance. She added
that she is still able to pazk in her garage, while other neighbors UI;e their garages for !iltorage,
thE!reby parking on the street or driveway. She stated that she was in favor of amending the
parking ordinance.
Mr. Fernando CaJT¡¡.nza stated that he has been a resident of Dublin since 1987, and wanted to
adyjse the COrnIr\ission that he was in favor of amending the parking ordinance tD allow garage
conversions. He noted that large fEUTIilies nel!ded to convert their garSLges to provide additional
housing area.
Ms. Catherine Brown spoke and stated that she had under:;tood the issue to be off-street parking,
rather than garage conversion. She stated that she was in favor of eliminating the word "enclosed"
from the parking regulations in order to allow hOlT1eowru"rs to use then: garages fm storage or other
uses. She noted that her family neêded to store items in the garage since they did not have a.
basement and had a small yard which could riot contaiI\ a storage shed. She added that due to the
high costs. of houging in the Bay Area, homeownQts are not always able to move mtD larger homes
as their family si,¡;~ grow, and needed to be able to convert their garag~s to provide more living
space.
œfa'¡flj"fJ CommiuiPfl
'R.eBW4r ;Mati"iJ
12
!Ji:'4U4ry 28, 2003
y'2,~ ùOî?,
Mr. Glenn Stapleton stated. that he has been a resident at his current address in DublÌI1 fo-r 27 year!>
and was irI favor of amendJ.ng the parking regulations ordinance to enable use of the garage for
other purposes than enclosed parking for velúcles.
When the citizens had lÜ1ished addressing the CómmissiOl'l, em. Fasulkey askêd If anyone else
wanted to address the Conunl5Sion¡ hearing none, he c1o¡;ed the public hearing, and the
Commission deliberated,
Cm. King asked what the conversion requireme:nts were for the City.
Mr. Gregory Shreeve, Building Official, gave testimony regardlrlg the permits required for garage
conversiOIl5 and information regarding requirclIU!nts of different conversion uses.
Cm. Machtmes expressed support for garnge conversioClS, providing the normai building and
bu¡;iness requirements were met
Çm, Jennings noted that as a general rule other cities do not allow garage conversions and that the
City could have oo11Sêquences that result from garage cOflversi01\S, citing a situation where a
conversion resulted in a massive fire. She also reiterated that ¡;he thought the parking regula80ns
and garage conversions should be separate issues.
Ms. Ram stated that if the Commission wanted more :iNdy on the issues of conçem that Stall ¡:Quid
be directed to further j¡¡ve:;tiga te and report back to the Commission with the findings,
Upon d e1iberation. Cm. haWkey stated in summary that the Commission needed to provide Staff
with direction on how to proceed,. and needed to determine if there wa.s oo.ncu.rrence with the
Council's direction and Intent of the ord\ruu¡œ change, He added that if the Commissìcm. could
concur with the intent, Staff could be directed to provide alternadves and studies regarding
aesthetics and déffigt\ standards; impact on traffic and safety: infrastructure impact Î5!illes sucll as
garbage collection; how broad the scope of potential conversions would be.: how to incorporate
design standa.rds; and how to address" grandiathering".
em. Fasulkey then asked for a straw poll, and em. NasmT, Cm. King and Machtmes were agreeable
to the intent of the Council's ordin.a.nce subject to further studies and further criteria for garage
conversion. Cm. Jennings stated that she did not have sufficient information to concur with the
intent,
Œ'fanltÙl¡J c01l'l1J'tis.síon
<RJ'pi4.-fM tttill¡J
13
Jtl7lfllU) 28. 2003
yq ù'b 13
Cm. P,ä¡¡u!keYRskeð.£or unOhonto continue ltøm.B.l to date uncer1;¡¡iJ1i ,onmotioo by Cm.KiQ!y
seconded by em. Macl1.bne&¡ and a voteof5~.o,theP1anr1ing Commission unanimDUslyapproved tr
continue- the matter.
J
\.
.'
NEW OR 11l'Ø'1NISHEDBUSll"Œ$S
9.1 Brown Act and. Political Reform Act Requirement¡¡ Presentation ød OUtline
Mr. Bakke-rpresented the outlirle pre:pare&bytheCity Attome:y thatdiscuS!le5 two of the State
laws, the 'Brown Act and Political Reform Act Requiremerlts, which he explained and defined for
the Commissioners.
There was disrossion between Mr. Bakker and the Commissioners about-specifics of tI-u: Brown Act,
which require¡ that all meetings must be ope:n. including Commissions, and prevents diSCU5!iion of
issues that are within the subject matter jurisdiction by a majority oHhe Commissioners outside of
a meeting. He also d!gc:ussed the Polincal Reform Act Requirements.. which states that they may
not take action on matters that would be a finandal confHctof interest.
Mr. Bakker infonned the Commission about the Fair Political Practices ComJnigsion (FPPC), which
is a bodÿ that can provide formal legal adviœ anda1so informal advice over the telephone. He
encouraged the Commi!Jsioners to conta.ct the City Attomeýs office or the PPPC for ques.tions
regarding the Political Refonn Act Requirements.
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Ram reminded thé Commission of the League of Cities Conference on March 20-22, 2003, and
a.cknowledged that all of the Commissioners except for em. Na.ssar are scheduled to attend.
Ms Ram advised théConuniseiot\.a.bout the Commercial LinkagE! Study Committee that is
I1westigating \:he impad on housing due to the businelò$ development. She notC>dthat the findings
of the study wöu1d mean a fair fee on new commercial construction and reported that the .
Commercial Linkage Study Committee needed a. Planning Commission appointed member from
the business community. She asked if any of the CommisBioners were interested in serving on this
Committee.
Cm. Nassar stared that he would be interested in serving on the Commercial Linkage Study
Committee. and asked for detalls about the time required for serving on the Committee..
14
Jamary2$¡ zoo;
p(¡¡.nni"f) COlllmi.r.rion
'1?§1J"{[,r !M.æmw
~O~3/
Ms. Ram related that ¡¡he estimated tl"u:.' time of service on the Committee to b~ six to eight monthl>,
possibly four hours 11 month. '
Cm. Fasu1k~y asked for a recommendation to appoint Cm. Nassar to tlæ Committee; on motion by
Cm_ Kir1g, seconded by Cm. Jennmgs, Cm. Nassar was appointed to the Commercial Linkage Study
Committee.
Ms. Ram discussed the Goals and Objectives mœting to be held on March 1, 2003, and adv>sed the
Commissioners thoat she would forward the specifics to them shortly.
Ms. Ram discussed the future City Cotmcil and Planning Commission meeting items.
~DJOURNMENT
The meeting was adîoumed at 9;00 p.m.
AITEST:
'Son
PQf=~
G, \ MlNUTE5\ZOO3 \ l'I""nlnt Commùo<lnn\ 1-28-03 pc mItI.coc
œú¡IITlÙIf! C()~
'l"egWar .!MmÙ'iJ
15
J4!UJd.ry 28, 2003
AG:¡¡:NDASTATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
, 61 Dbl,
FEBRUARY 25, 2003
SUBJECT: P A 03-002 City of Dublin, Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amendment to
Chapter 8.12, Zoning DistricTS and renn.itteci Uses of Land; Chaptc:r 8.76, Off-
Street Parking and Loading Re¡uJations; and Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use
Permit of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. These amendments will allow fur the
conversion of garages to living space in R-l, Single Family Residential zoning
dîstricts by means oh Conditional Uso:: Pennit. f':1L.-
Prepared by Mamie R, WajJle, AssÎSlont Planner ~
ATTACHMENTS~ 1. January 28, 2003, PlllJUlin¡¡ Commission Staff Report
2. January 28, 2003, PIUI1Iring Commission. minutes on Zoning
Ordinance Amelidment to Chapt<::r 8.76.· Off Street Parking and
Londing Rcgu1ations
3. Chapter 8.100.060, Conditional Use Permit Required Findings
4. Reso]ution recOrnmendinIJ the City Council adopt the ordinance
amending the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
5. OrdltlBIlce amending Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permitted
Usa¡ of Landi Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading
Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional Use Permit of th..
Dublin Zoning Ordinance
3.
4.
5.
Open Public Hearing a.od receive StaffPfC'ser.\latiCln;
Take testimony from the Public;
Que!rtion Staff and the Public;
Close Public Hearing and deliberate;
Adopt resolution (Attachment 4) recommCTIding the City Council
adopt the Ordinance (AullCbment :5) to amend the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
RECOMMENDA nON: 1-
')
P'
BACKGROUND:
At the January 28, 2003, Planning Commission meeting, Staff brought forth an item, at the request of the
Chy COlmcil, eoru:erning an ..mend.m=t to the City's off-street puking ?equirement for single,famiJy
residential dwellings. The proposed amendment would eliminate the rcqt.riremel1.t fl)r two, off-street parking
spæes 1'11 1m enclosed ga.rage and require only two, off-street parking spaces for the plUpOse of converting
n:side:ntiai g=ge5 to living space (Attachment I).
Staff's report recommended that the Planning Commission adopt It ReSQlutíonrecommending that the City
COW'leil ooop1 an Ordinance to amend the City'. Off-street Parking and Lœ.ding Regulations of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission received Staffs presentation. received public testimony,
delibera;ted and directed Staff to provide alternatives end studies regarding aesthetics and design standards;
impacts 011 traffic and safety; înfì:a$tructure impacts such as, garbage collection; the scope of potential
conversions; incorporating design !!tand/.lJ'ds; and how to addn:ss grand-fathering. (Attaclunent 2).
-_...._------~~--------_..---
-_--.-.-------
COPIES TO: In HQuse Distribution
ITEMNO,_,
ç;\PAII\2....'''''·002IPCSR ,2.2'-03.00C
ATTACHMENT 7·~
DESCRIPTION:
b 2. 0() -'3
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance currently requÎmi that each residential dwelling provide two, off-street
parking spaces in an C.I1closed gsmge. Tbh Jjlltking requirement prevents the conversion of garages to living
spacos unless two, enclosed parking spaces can be provided elsewhere on the lot.
By removil.1g the word "e:nclosed" from the parking requirement, residents would be a.ble to COIlvert their
gtu'ages to living spaces and new homes could be built without gaF<lf,¡es. Req~sts to convert gaTages wou]d
be reviewed upon applic¡rtjon for a. building permit. The applicant would. submit plms $howing how they
propose 'to conv=rt their garage to livms spa.c:e. The BuiJding D~ would review ~ pltmS for
. conformance with the Urùf= Buildinlš Code. The Planning Department would also review the plans to
Cl15l1J'e 1I1e proper setbacks, lot coveroge and height limits were maintained, and that two off-stxeet pa.rking
~paœs could be provided. However, Staff would not have the ability to review the deslgII of the conversion
or impose conditions ofapprov.al to mitigate potentinl impacts:&om the conversion.
At the Planning Commission meeting on January 28, 2003, the Commi"ion raised the foJJowing concerns
regarding the ecmversion of pages to living spaces: 1) traffic and safety, 2) infta.'\tructurelservi«¡ impacts,
3) scope of conversions, 4) aesthetics md design standards, and 5) granð..fa.ther!IJg. Staff has reviewed those
concerns and developed.a solution to address them.
~AL YSlS;
Staff recommends 1\ Conditional Use Permit process, with the Pianmng Commission as the decision making
body, in order to conditionally approve requests to convert gara,geS into living space. hi. order to approve a
Conctitional Use Permit, ctmain findings must be made to address issues such as, compatibility with adjacent
properties; adverse impacts to hel'Ùth, safety and wdfllre; Impacts on property or improvements in the
neighborhood; whether the site is physically suitable for the changes being proposed; !U1d, consistency with
development regulations for the wning district in which the project is located.
In addition to the findings for a Conditional U!Ie Permit, Staffreeommends adding a new finding to address
the design of garage conversions. This new finding would read:
Architectural considerations, jncluding the charactu, scale cmd quality of the design, the
architcctur¡¡] rela.tionship with the si1e and other buildings, building materials and calms, scre=n.ing
of exterior appnrtenantes, exterior lighting, and similar elements have been ineorporatad into the
project and as l..'Ol1ditlons of approval in order to insure compatibility of this development with the
dev¡¡:lopment's design oono!';pt or them¡¡: ilDd the character of adjacent building~, neighborhoods,
and uses.
TnifTf.C fU!d Safety~
Und~r the Conditional Use Permit findings (AttJ.1Cluncnt 3), traffic and safety concerns would be reviewed
for ooverse impacts to, the subject site; adjacent properties; neîghborhood improvements; and, the public
health, safety, and welfare. Upon receiving a Conditional Use Permit application, Staff would review the
proposaJ WId rq¡ort to the Planning Commission on issues specific to the Bite sueh as, whethor the subject
site is sui1a1>le for the conversion of a ga.ra.¡¡e to living space; whether adequate parking i:Xits on...site to satisfy
two off.street parking spaces; wbciher on-stree1 parking is available; and, whclhcr adequate site-distance
rellllionships ¡:xis!. The Plannmg Commission would ¡¡15ò be !ible to adopt Conditions of Approval to reduce
any foreseeable impacts on tmffic and safety.
1.
InfrœtructurelSeniœ [mpttets:
Impacts to infrastructure or services, including street !>Weeping and waste: receptacle pJaccment, would be
addressed by requiring that two, off.street parking space!! be provided. In order for a CondltionaJ Use Permit
to be approved, an applicant would have to show where on their lot th~ cou1d provide the two, off-3Ireet
parking spaçes, This mjtrin:ment would prevent the displacement ofv~le parking to the pubHe St1=t.
I.:) ~ va -¡3
Scoþl! ofCoHve~fons:
Development reguJaûons have been estYblished for every zoning dislrict throl1ßhout the City. Conditional
Use penrrit applications to convert garages to JiviTlg space wouid be held to the development regulatio.ns for
the residential ooning district in which the dwelling was located. These regulacloDS include, heishts,
setbacks, and lot coverage. Requests to convert garages would not impact these I1:gwations since the
strncture is existing and already meets the height, setback, and lot coverage requirements.
A.eflhetÎcs amI Design Srandards:
The addition of a new finding, tl> the conditional use permit f\ndings for garage conversioIJS, wotJld
specifically address design and architecture, and allow the Planning Conunission to review IIlld approve thc
physical appearance of a propo~ garage conver$ion. Conditions of approval could be adopted to reduce
adverse visual impacts <md improve the qutllity of the design.
While the: conver~ioJ1 of one-, two- or thrœ-car garages to Jiving spaces typica11y alters the emerior of !I.
~idential dwc1ling. this is not always the case. According to the Unifonn Building Code, a conve:rtf:d
garage Catl retain the existing gamge doòr allowing the home to maintain its outward appear.mce and
preserve tbc tU1ÎÍonnity within !be neiahborhood. RctainÎn ¡; the pII'tIgc door ill optionaJ and is not reqlJÍl'i:d
by the Buildin¡¡: Code.
Other jurisdictions which have allowed gllCage conversions provide examples of vmom designs used to
incorporate a gmage conversion into the: overall design of a bome and the neighborhood. Design dem<:mts
comroomy illdude, uciform colors and materials; architectural features such liS, style of windows, awnings,
stone or brick overlays; and, articulation of building walls.
o.,.l¡¡n ElemoonlO: Unlfgrm COI.I'> ¡r, ""'ten.la. Awning<, Windows,
AocfF'1!ch
3
Grand"¡øtherin, :
Garage conversions con&tructed with pem1Ì1s under Alameda County would have been grand-fathered when
the City of Dublin aòopted the ordinance to eliminate the ability 10 convert a garage by requiring two, off-
S1n:ct pmking spaces în an enclosed garage. The CXlWt number of gamgc conversions built under Alamroa
County, or prior to the City adopted ordinance to elimin~te cOrJvel!ions, is not known. To the best of Staff's
kIJowledge, only one garage conversion has been permitted since the City mcorporated While it is not
!mown how many Ulegal. conversions exist, there are currently three under code enforcement action. If the
proposed Zoning Ordinance ameruhm:nts are a.ðopted, illegal conversionS can be legalized IIIId permitted by
going through the Conditional Use Pennit and Building Permit processes.
Amendment:
Attached is a draft Ordinance that would address the Planning Commissions concerns and implement the
City CO\ll1ciI's direction. In essence, the z,;,ning Ordinance contioues to require two. enclosed, Clrr-street
parking spaces per single.family residential unit. However. if somronc wantS to convert thc.ir garage to a
living spact, so tha1 tMy would no longer be able to park vehicles ÍDliide, they may be able to do sc. In order
to convert a garage to living space, the rc3ident would be required to submit an appliclltion for 8 CçmditionaJ
Use Penni!, with the Planning Commission ßS the decision makiPg body. All Conclitional Use Permit
fJndings,incluèin¡: the oo.ditiQnaI finding for designfarchitec:tural colJ$ideratlons, would have to be met and
lU'y foresaeabl0 adverse impacts addr¡,ssed, prior 10 approval or through Conditiotl5 of Approval. The
applicant would be required to show that twO, fu11-size, off·sttee'l plICking spac~ can be provided. in an
approved area on their lot, prior to converting their gMlge. For exænple, if they can proviòc two, full-sJze
parking spaces on the driveway, that would satisfy the regulations. In addition, garage conversions would
have to c:omply with all other City regulations (buildìng pennit, etc.).
EnvirlJ1lfflc/tta/ Review:
On August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 fIDding that the Compreheru;ive Rrnsion
to the: Zoning Ordinance, inc1uding Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking And Looding Regulations is exempt
from the California. Envi10nmental Quality Act (CEQA). II can be Been with certainty that thm is no
jXlssibility IMt revising the Zoning Ordinance in this manner would have 8 signific:ant effect on the
environment (Section I 5D61 (b X3). Various changes to the Zoning Qrdmance listed above Qre proposed
<4
wlùch wouJd not in=asi: or creatL': =nvironmcnUl! impacts. Thi:se c~~ will have ~~~~ /
impacts. and are WO exempt ftom the Cali fomia Environmental QuaJity Act (CEQA) beœuse it can b~ s~en
with certainty that there is no possibility that such ame:ncimerr!$ would ba.va B- significant effect on .the
environment.
CONCLUSION:
The Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.120), requires that all zonin¡ ordinance amendments (such WI the
proposed amendments to Chapter 8.12 Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.16, Off-
Strcd Plltking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100 Conditional Use Permit) behc:ard by the
PlaruJing Commission 1U1d following n public hearing, the Planning CoIIlIllissÌon shall make a. written
rtlCommendation to thi: City Council whether to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove: the
amendment. The propQs¡!d Ordinance (Attachment 5) impiements City Council dirccti\JT1 â11d addre¡SCS
Pluming Commission conc=ms.
RECOMMENDADON
Staff recomttlcnds that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and teCi:¡ ve Staff pr~entation, ¡like
tesümony from the public, question Staff Md the publil:, close the public hearing. deiiberat= iIIId adopt
resolution (Attachment 4) recommending that the City Council adopt the Ordinance (Attachment 5) to
lWend the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
5
"
5Lo ùb13
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and continlJe the p\.l.blic
hearing to March 11, 2003.
Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked ifanYOJ.'le wished to address the Commission;
h2aring noIlC, he closed the public hearing, and reque$lE!d a motion 1:0 continue Item S.l to March
11,2003.
On motion by Cm. Maclttmes, seconded by em. Jennirlgs, and a vote of 5..{J, the Planning
Commission W1.animously approved continuance to the March 11, 2003 heating.
On motion by em, Todd, seconded by Cm, King. and a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission
unanimously approved continuance to :
8.2 PA 05·002 - ZDrring Ordil'tance Amendment to Chapter 8.12, Zoning Distrit;1:9. and
Pemlitted Usea of Land; Chapter 8.76, Of{·!ltœet Parking and Loading Regulations; and
Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit. These amencbnents will al1uw f01 the conversion
of garages to living space in R-I, Single Family Residential zoning districts by meiU1S of a
Conditio1L11 Use Permit.
Ms. Waffle presertted the Staff Report and Power point presentation of the proposed Zoning
Ordinance arnendm~nts to the Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Off-Street Parkmg ar¡è,
Loading Regulations; and Condil::iowJ Use Permit (CUP).
Ms. Waifl<:, reier~ced the January 28, 2003 hea1'ing when this item was originally hea1d and
continued, and reiterated the concerns expressed by the Commission at that hearing concerning
aesthetic and design standards; impact;; on traffic: and safely; infrast1'Ucture/servke imp.'>ctsi SCOpl!
of g¡>rage çonverOiions; incorporation of design'standards; and grandfathering. She noted that the
Staff Report and am\.'ndmcnts reflected Staff's recommendations for addressing and resolving the
Commission's concerns, proposing a CUP proces$ to convert a garage into living space in the R-l
Single Family Residential Zming District. She also Jlo~d that a new Finding would be added to
the CUP (DêsignjArchitecture) to allow the Commission to consider design standards in the CUP
proœss.
Ms. Waffle distributed a revised copy of the proposed Ordinance (A ttachment 5 of the Staff Report)
to the Commissioners and citizens in the audience, noting that specific wQrding ha.d been
i1'\adverte!\tly ömiHed from the origin.ð-l versiQn.
<J?ti¡n'llift{! COIflmWim:
<J(J;elÚar ~~ti"8
23
rr.6rrmry 25. 2003
ATTACHMENT -j · b
61 ùb 13
There was extensive diswssicm between Staff IInd the Commissíon rega.rding specifics of the
proposed amendments.
em. Kir1g asked questions about tM amertdmen.ts, specifically tnf;! CUP, and expreSI>~d eç>ncem
about the parking impacts that could arisl'! hom a garage conver¡;ion.
Ms. Waffle re.'Jponded that residents would stilJ be required to mlÙtltam two enclosed off-street
parkirtg spaces, but that as pø.rt of the CUP application process, II resident could be allowed an
exception to the "endosed" garage requirement. Hòweve:J', for approval of the CUP, residents
wouJd be required to provide two full ¡¡izE: off-street parking spaces. With off-street parking stiJJ
:required, the parking impacts from a conversion would be minimal or non-existent.
Ms. Waffle I\Oted that the Zo:rûng Ordinance rnrrently .<;tates that an enclosed garage must be
"maintained". She stated that by amending the Ordinance, the PJanning- Commissicm would be
abJe to review the parking issues, arid other concerns, for each cOItVersion request and CUP.
em. King asked about the an:hiteCtural considerations and how an applicant wou]d be required to
provide design pLms for the Commission's review.
Ms. R"m stated that as part of the applicatíon material, submittal checklists are provided to all
.applicants who .apply for a CUP.
em. King asked if other dties had design standards or guidelines for garage conversions, and asked
if more specific language should be used, noting Homeowner Asoociations established very specific
guidelines.
em. Machtmes recommended that the design standard language for the City of Dublín should
remain less specific for pre--~isting homes. as the home designs would be very different and would
..equire case-Þy-case co.nsideratlon.
Both Staff and the Commissioners agreed that the City of Dublin's desig11 standards have
consistently improved over the years =d that high quality design could be achieved without
¡;;pecific and binding languaj3e to limit j3"rage conversions.
Cm. King asked how the CC&R'.5 would be addressed if they con£lkt wi th City regulations, and
expressed concern that without explicit language, there is confusion and misunderstandings. He
noted the t it would be beneficiaJ to have disclaimer l8.!'Iguage to prevent misunderstandi.ngs in the
tJ>(arrtlir/8 Commissicn
~gufa1' 'Meetirr¡¡
24
q:,&tw.ry 2J, 2003
5ß ð:ö13-
intørprelatioI1 of City regulations and Ho:meowner Associ~tion CC&:R's, ¡;inœ often CC&:R'¡; have
differing or addlrional regulations than those martdatedÞy the City.
Cm. Machtmt$ noted that often citize!ls have other legal responsibilities that the City is not
involved in, and staled that he believed it wopld not be the City's plare to advise applicants of
those responsibilities. He added that he was not adve~se to It reminder that would prompt the
applicant to verify that there were no other legal factors and responsiÞiUties affecting their
application.
Cm. King asked if the Manning Commission would hear all the CUP reviews for garagt
conversions.
Ms. Ram confirmed that the PlaTlning Commission would review the applícations.
Cm. Machtmes asked for c1arific::ation on the required two full size off· street parkiT1g spices, which
was shown on the Power poinf presenwHon with II house with a single-car garage COI'Iversion. He
asked if in that situa.tion would a homeowner be allowed to convert the gilrage with only a single-
CiIT driveway.
Ms, Ram answered that in that situation a homeowner would not be allowed to have a ronversion.
as twO fun size off-stree~ parking spaces would be required.
Cm. Machtmes also ilsked for clarification on whether or not new housing projects could be built
without garages,
Ms. Ram stated that the new housing projects are z01'1c¡d Plarmed Development (PD) and would
have to apply for a CUP as well as a Site Development R£!View (SDR).
Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing, and asked i1 anyone from the public wished to address
the Commission.
1bere were three dtizens who ilddressed the CœnmisErioC\. They stated that they were agalTlst the
recommeI'ldation as proposed with a CUP requirement and wanted to have the íssue remain a
"parking" issue and have the word "endosed" removed from the Ordinance, as discussed by the
City Council in November 2002.
Mr. Ken Young spoke on behalf of himself and his wife Cindy, and stated that he believed that
there has been a misunde-rstanding regarding the Council':> direction and intent on the parking
rK4nninIJ Cammission
'Rfteu&:"9duting
25
'fe5mn.ry 25, 2003
5Cf Öb Î?
mdinance. He referenced the NOVCIllbE!r 19, 2002 Oty Council meeting aI1d Tloted that he beli~ved
that the Council's intent was to require off-street puking but not requíre that parking to be
enclosed, thereby remc;)\'JI1g the word" enclosed" from the ordinance. He stated that he felt the
i~$Ue at hòtll.d was not about garage corlVersions, but rather about parking. He added !:hi! ¡ he felt
that the curreI1t parking ordinance Willi discriminatory and inconsistent because .a resident could
use the garage for storage (and not use it for parking), yet would be in compliance¡ but that once
thcre is II permanent structuxe ill the garag(r, it would not: 'be legal or permitted. He stated that he
was agamst the recommendation as proposed with a CUP requirement, and wanted to have the
word "enclosed" removed from the parking ordinance. He asked if the Commission were to
approve this recommendation, W0l11d there be II right of appeal on the CUP application following
Commission action.
em. Fasulkey stated that there would be a normal appeal process, IU'Id encouraged Mr. Young to
contact the Planrring DepartmeJ'\t for infonnation on that process.
Ms, Esther Vigil spoke and stated that she was discouraged following the previous Comm.ission
hearing of thisiSllUe, and felt that she was not going to be allDWed to continue to use and maintain
the dark room in her garage if the parking ordIDanœ was not changed to allow non-enclosed
parking. She alBo noted that the presentations did not represent theOty of Dublin's conversions,
and that if canopies and the storage of' trash in the front of homes was a concem, then she stated
that it should be a separate i¡¡SJJe from II parking regulatlon i¡¡Sl1e.
Cm. Fasu1key explained that Staff had been directed to provide examples from cities where
conversions were allowed, and obtain information Ú'om those dties as to specific!! of the process.
He added that this information was necessary to enable them to make informed decisions on the
issue to better serve the community.
Ms. Linda Lamke spoke and stated that if the City was concerned about the parking issue, then the·
violators who dD not use their garages (or other off-street spaces for parking) should be cited. She
added that residents shÇluld not be required to have enclosed parldns and should be aÞle to convert
t1:eir jving space.
Cm. King advised Ms. Lamke that the Mayor of Dublin is very concerned about the issues under
discussion òtlI.d eI\eOUra ged her to email or contact the Mayor abollt her concerns.
Cm. Fasulkey ..1$0 encouraged Ms. Lamke to contact the City's Staff if she had complaints 0:1'
comments.
!Planning Cl11Il#Iusion
~lJUÚJ.r :M.""tin¡j
26
ο6'f11l11Y 2.5, 2003
/..gO ó(]13
When t:ht; citizens had finished addressing the Commission, Cro. Fasulkey asked if anyone else
wanted to address the Commission; hearing none. he dosed the public hearmg. and the
Commission deliberated.
Cm. Jermings stilted that she wanted dariHcation regarding the Oty Council's intent of the item,
whether it was a parkirlg or garage conversion issue.
Gn, FasuJkey summarized the issue and explained that as m\ attempt by the City Council to allow
gi1rage conversion:;, th", word "enclosed" was proposed to b", removed from the parking
regulations, He noted that the City has never allowed garage conversions, and Councilman Sbranti
had requested conllideratlon to allow conversions. At the January 28 hearìng, the Commission had
deterrnìned that unmanageable issue::; resulted from the removal of the word "endDged", and
expressed concerns about the ['amifications, such as parking iB5U~S find the rippling effects to the
neighborhoods, aesthetics, public safety, etc. They had asked Staff to address those resulting issues,
and cDnsequently, Staff undertook the task of addressing the concerns while considering the Ot}'
Council's request tQ allow garage conversions. Therefore, Staff has submitted the recommendation
to amend the Zoning Ordinance and propose a CUP process to convert a garage mto living space in
the R·l Single Family Residenti$.l ZotIiI'\g District.
Cm, J ennîngs asked what the adjoining cities' policies were on garage conversions and there was
additioool discussion between Staff and the Commission about other cities that allow garage
conversions.
Upon de1iberaliot1,. Crn. Fasulkey requegted. a motion. On motion by em. King, seconded by em.
Machtmes, and a vote of 4-1, with Cm. Jennings voting against the project, the Plarming
Commission approved:
RESOLUTION 05-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL AfPROY At OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 8.12 ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND;
CHAPTER B.76 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS; AND,
CHAPTER 8.100 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP), OF THE
DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE
P A 03-001
IplãMine CMtl1liJ'.firm
'R.fguûJr !Mtd.í1f(J
27
'F$Ó1Wry 2), 200}
SUBJECT;
ATTACHMENTS;
¡
/.p ub 'J3
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2005
PA 03.002 City of Dub1ln, Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amendment to
Chapter 8.12, Zoning Distri.ets and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-
S1reet Parking and Loading Regulations; Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit
and enact Chapter 8.78 Garage Conversion of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. These
amendments would revoke the regulations that allow for Garage Conversions with
a Conditional Use Pennit and revise the procedure to allow for Garage Conversions
(without a Conditiortal Use Permit) in certain residential zoning districts if certain
performance standards can be met.
Report Ptepared by: Linda Ajello, Associate Planner ~
1.
Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Ordinance
revoking Ordinance 4-03, which established a conditional use permit
. procedure for Garage Conversions; and adopt a new Ordinance
which would amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a new
procedure based on performance standards for Garage Conversions.
Ordinance revoking Ordinance 4-03, which established a conditional
use penl1it procedure for Garage Conversions.
Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to create a new
procedure for Garage Conversions based on performance standards.
City of Dublin Ordinance No. 4"03 Amendment to Chapter 8.12,
Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.76, Off-
S1reet Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8.100,
Conditional Use permit of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance adopted on
April 1, 2003.
Staff Report and Minutes for City Council Meetings:
a. November 19,2002
b. March 18, 2003
c. April 1, 2003
d. July 19, 2005
Staff Report and Minutes for Planning Commission Meetings:
a. January 28,2003
b. February 25, 1003
Minutes for May 3,2605, City Council Hearing on Appeal of PA
04-036.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
______~-_-_--_-----------m---~~--~~~~------------------~~--~---------------~,------------------~-----------~---------------~----
COPIES TO: In House Distribution
~
G:\PA#\2003\OO-Oö2 G;:L~se Conversjon\Gamgc çon~itm2005\»CSR JO-25-05 T=."i;g~d.:dQç
AT-r~""""'~ 7c...
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Opell Public Hearing
Receive Staff Presentation Lo L ùb 1?
Receive Public Testimony
Close Public Hearing
Deliberate
Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending that the City
Council adopt an Ordinance repealing Ordinance 4-03 and adopting
an Ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance
PROJECT DESCRIPTION;
At the November 19, 2002 City Council meeting, the City Council directed Staff to review an amendment
to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. At that time, the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance required that each residential dwelling provide two off-street parking spaces in
an enclosed garage. This parking requirement prevented the conversion of garages to living spaces unless
two enclosed parking spaces could be provided elsewhere on the lot.
At the City Council's direction, Staff proceeded with an amendment to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to
remove the word "enclosed" from the parking requirement. Staff prepared a report and presented the
proposed amendment to the Planning Commission on January 28, 2003. The Planning Commission
directed Staff to provide altematives and studies to address the following concerns regarding the
conversion of garages to living space: 1) traffic and safety, 2) infrastrocture/service impacts, 3) scope of
conversions, 4) aesthetics and design standards, and 5) grand_fathering.
At the February 25, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, Staff returned with a report that addressed the
Planning Commission's concerns and recommended a Conditional Use Permit process with the Planning
Commission as the decision-making body. In order for the Planning Commission to approve a
Conditional Use Permit, certain findings would have to be made to address issues stich as compatibility
with adjacent properties; adverse impacts to health, safety and welfare; impacts on property or
improvements in the neighborhood; whether the site is physically suitable for the changes being proposed;
and, consistency with development regulations for the zoning district in which the proj ect is located.
Additionally, Staff recommended that a new conditional use permit finding be added for residential
garage conversions:
H. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design,
the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and
colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elements
have been incorporated into the proj<JCtand as conditions of approval ill order to
insure compatibility of this development with the development's design concept or
theme and the character of adjacent buildings, neighborb.OOds, and uses.
The Plal1Jling Commission adopted Resolution No. 03-04 recommending that the City Council adopt an
Ordinance that would allow garage conversions with a conditional use pennit process that included the new
finding referenced above.
On March 18, 2003 and April 1,2003, the City Council held public hearings on this item and approved
Ordinance No. 4-03 amending the Zoning Ordinance and thereby allowing for garage conversions with a
conditional use permit to be heard by tbe Planning Commission.
2
On May 3, 2005, the City Counq'· '1eard an appeal of the Planning Comr . 'SlOn approval of a proposed
conditional use pennit for a gar,,-ge conversion at 7697 Canterbury La..v' (P A 04.0036). During the
deliberation on that appeal, the City Council requested that an item be placed on a future agenda 10
discuss garage conversions in generaL
IV)
t'-
t1J
r(1
~
On July 19, 2005, the City Council received a status report from Staff on garage conversions that have
been approved or denied since the inception of Ordinance 4-03 in April 2003. The City Council
discussed the intent of allowing garage conversions and reached .a consensus that the Ordinance was not
achieving the City Council's intent. At that meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a future
agenda item to have the Garage Conversion Ordinance 4-03 revoked and to develop a new Ordinance that
better met the City Council's intent, while considering the following issues:
· Amount of off-street parking
· Subjectivity
· Requirement to maintain garage door
· Legality of sign-off ofradius neighbors
· Scope of the appeal process
· Whether a CUP would be required
Amendment:
Staffhas prepared draft ordinances that were designed to address the concerns of the City Council. The draft
ordinances would: 1) repeal Ordinance 4-03, which established a conditional use permit for garage
conversions and 2) amend Chapter 8 of the MUlÙcipal Code to allow garage conversions as a ministerial
action. The new ordinance would enact Chapter 8.78 pertaining to garage conversion¡¡ to the MUlÙcipal
Code. The new code section would allow garage conversions with the issuance of a 1?uilding permit,
provided that the following perfonnance standards are met:
A. There are no modifications to the garage door or to the exterior of the dwelling except for the
addition ofwindow(s) to the garage's walles) that do not front on the street
B. Two full-size unenclosed parking spaces will be available on the parcel following the conversion.
Since the approval process will be a ministerial action, there will be no right to appeal.
The City Attorney reviewed the legality of requiring D.eigbbor sign-off fi'om properties within the required
radius of a property applying for a ministerial garage conversion pennit. The City Attorney concluded that
such a requiremeD.t would violate the due process of rights of the owner of the subject property and would be
an unlawful delegation of power. It is the opinion of the City Attorney that, if challenged, such a provision
would not be upheld in a court oflaw.
Environmental Review:
On August 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 103-97 finding that the Comprehensive Revision
to the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It can be seen with certàinty that there is no
possibility that revising the Zoning Ordinance in this manner would have a significant effect on the
enviromnent (Section 1 5061 (b) (3). Various changes to the Municipal Code listed above are proposed which
would not increase or create environmental impacts. These changes will have no envirorunental impacts and
are also exempt from the California Envirornnental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen with eertàinty
that there is no possibility that such amendments would have a significant effect on the environment.
3
CÖNCLUSION:
)
)
(pY.ùQ 13
..
TM Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.120) requires that all zohing ordinance amendments (such as the.additiori
of Chapter 8.78 Garage Conversioris and proposed amendments to Chapter 8.76, OmStreet PaJ'lang and
Loading Regulations) be heard by the Planning Commission and following a public hearing, the Pla.mJing
Commission sha11.mak¢ a written reeonnnendatiön to the CityCo\U1cil whether to approve, approve with
modifications, or disapprove the amendment. The proposed Ordinance (Attachment 3) implements City
OO\U1cil direction and addresses Planning Commission concerns.
RECÖMMENDATION;
Staffreconnnends that the Plamúng Commission: 1) oPeri the public hearing and receive Staff presentation,
2) take teStimony from the public, 3) question Staff and the public, 4) close the public hearing, 5) deliberate
and; 6) adopt Resolution reconnnending that the City COllIlcil adopt the Ordinance to repeal Ordinance 4-03
and adopt Ordinance to amend tbe Zoning Ordinance of the Dublin Municipal Code.
4
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ASSESSOR PARCELS:
GENERAL PLAN!
SPECIFIC PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE:
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Citywide
Various
Various
Various
lD5~13
5
lilt lÞ 'ò
PI . C .. M· t ' 13
anntng OmmlSStOn . tnu es
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October
11,2005, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civk Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting
to order at 7:00pm.
Present: Chair Schaub, Corrunissioners, Biddle, King, FasuJkey and Wehrenberg; Jeri Ram,
Community Development Director; Chris Foss, Acting Planning Manager; Johl1 Bakker,
Assistant City Attorney; Linda. AjeHo, Associate Planner; Jeff Baker, Associate Planner; Michael
Porto, Plamling Consultant; Eddie Peabody, PI arming Consultant; Jerry Haag, EIR Consultant;
Ray Kuzbari, Traffic Engineer; Linda Gates, Landscape Consultant; and Renuka Dhadwal,
Recording Secretary.
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - Minutes of October 11, 2005 meeting were approved
as submitted. Chair Schaub and Cm. Fasulkey abstained, as they were not present at the
previous meeting.
ORAL COMMUNJCA TION - None
CONSENT CALENDAR - None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 PA 03-002 Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Permitted
Uses of Land; Chapler 1>.76, Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 8:1 00,
Conditional Use Permit; and enactChapter 8.78, Garage Conversions. These amendments
will repeal the regulations that allow for the conversion of garages to living SpaΠin R-I,
Single Family Residential (SFR) zoning districts with a Conditional Use Permit and allow for
Garage Conversions in SFR districts (without a Conditional Use Permit) if certain
performance standards Can be met.
Chair Schaub asked for the staff report.
Linda Ajello, Associate Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff
report.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she understood the part about not having the neighbor's sign-off
on garage conversions. However, would a notifkation of the possible conversion be mailed to
œÜ"ni1ffJ Cammísj'ion.
'l(vuu!Ú'M"1inU
140
Octa6er' 2.1, 2005
. A-TTAC-+-JMt:or-J"T 7c..
U w1l5b
_ í'?
the neighbors within 300' radius? Ms. Ajello responded that currently under the Conditional
Use Permit process, neighbors witllin the 300-ft. radius are notified. However, if the City
Council approved the proposed Ordinance the conversion would become a mimsterial action
and no notification would be required, as it would be treated as a building permit.
Cm. Fasulkey stated that he thought the City was requiring two enclosed spaces in addition to
the two unenclosed spaces. Ms. Ajello responded that prior to adopting the Ordinance, the City
required two enclosed parking spaces, however the requirement becomes two unenclosed
parking spaces with the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Ram read the following
paragraph from the proposed Ordinance (Attachment 3 to the Staff Report) to c!<J.rify Cm.
Fasulkey's concern:
Parking spaces required by this Chapter shall be located within an enclosed garage,
except that two. full-size. unencl08ed parking spaces may be provided elsewhere on a lot
for the purposes of converting a residential garage to living space pursuant to Chapter
8.78.
Cm. Biddle asked for clarification regarding the process for garage conversions. Ms. Ajello
responded that, if approved, the garage conversion would not require a Conditional Use Permit;
it would be processed as a building permit. However, the Planning Division would review the
application to ensure conformity with performance standards.
Cm. Biddle asked, for example, how a second story addition for a residence would be handled.
Ms. Ajello responded that it would be processed through the building permit; however,
Planning would review to ensure conformity with the zoning requirements.
Chair Schaub asked if the neighbors would be informed regarding the addition. Ms. Ajello
stated no.
Cm. Biddle asked if a homeowner were to build an addition to the house and increased its
footprint, would that be handled through building permit as well. Ms. Ajello responded yes
and added that if it were a single story residence, 40% lot coverage would be allowed.
However, if the residence were two stories, 35% lot coverage would be allowed. Planmng
would still review zomng conformance.
Cm Wehrenberg stated that she had concerns similar to Cm. Fasulkey related to verifying the
sufficiency of off-street parking and if it would be verified during the permit process. Ms.
Ajello responded that during the permit process, verification would be made to ensure two
unenclosed parking spaces are being provided prior to finalizing the permit.
Cm. Biddle asked about the size of the required parking spaces required. Ms. Ajello responded
that they are 20' by 20' for two. Cm. Biddle asked if it is correct that many of the homes in
Dublin would not have 20-ft. driveway. Ms. Ram responded yes.
œfmltdng Commi.r.I'Ùm
1iJ'jJu!4r,Mming
-
141
0"10("" 25. 2005
~.........'... 0ßOb
III 1?
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and hearing no comments from the public closed the
public hearing.
Chair Schaub expressed his concerns regarding the garage conversion process. He stated that
he did not like the process whereby a neighbor had no say in the improvements of his neighbor.
He read into the record his observations about commurlity interests.
em. King indicated that he was glad that the decision-making authority for aesthetics of the
garage conversion is being removed from the Plarming Commission. However, he was
concerned that no thought was being given to the off-street parking consequences for the
surrounding area. As the need for more cars for a family increases, parking availability for
those cars would diminish due to the conversion,
Cm. Biddle stated that he understood the parking concerns. However, there are many things in
the neighborhood and in a family that affects the parking situation in an area. It is very
difficult, as a Commission, to mandate a situation to control parking.
Cm. Fasulkey observed that the City has seen six conversions since the inception of the
Ordinance tlnee years ago. Out of that total, one was Tl'tracted and one was derlied. Out of the
remaining four, two conversions were to cover illegal conversions. He opined not have
conversion.<: at all.
Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with him.
Chair Schaub commented that as the community grows in the east, the majority of the
neighborhoods in the City would be governed by the CC& Rs and therefore segregating one
section in the City to conform to the Ordinance does not make sense.
Cm. Biddle commented that if the Commission decides to recommend conversions to the City
Council for approval, then handling it as suggested by Staff is a better approach. Cm. Biddle
commended Staff on addressing Council issues.
Chair Schaub asked Ms. Ram as to how the Commission should handle the issue since there is
no 'not recommending' resolution. Ms. Ram suggested that the Commission first needs to
decide what it would like to recommend. The City currently does have an Ordinance to allow
garage conversions through a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore if the Plarming Commission
decides to not recommend the entire package then the Ordinance will remain in effect.
Alternatively, the Commission could recommend to the City Council to repeal the Ordinance
but not recommend adopting a new Ordinance.
On a motion by Chair Schaub, seconded by Cm. FasuIkey, the Planning Commission made a
motion recommending City Council approval to repeal the existing Ordinance and
recommending that the City CounciJ not adopt a new Ordinance, by a 3-2-0 vote the Planrling
Commission adopted:
IP[anrán{j Cmf1.fflÜ,ÚIJ1T.
1?fiIufo.r :Meí1/:Ù¡g
142
Oçt()(if:'f" 25, 200J
~~6ò
l1li tv '1;
RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 056
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO REPEAL ORDIANANCE 4"()3
RELATED TO GARAGE CONVERSIONS; AND RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 8.12, ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND;
CHAPTER 8.76, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS;
AND CHAPTER 8.100, CONDlTONAL USE PERMITS, OF TITLE 8, THE CITY OF DUBLIN
MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT GARAGE CONVERSIONS
P A 03-002
M5. Ram suggested that the Commissioners opposed to the motion should state their reasons
for opposition.
Cm. Biddle stated that since Staff did a good job in addressing City Council's concerns, the City
Council should be the deciding authority on this matter.
Cm. King agreed that the existing Ordinance 5hould be repealed. However he is not in favor of
prohibiting convcrsions. He further added that he would vote in favor of the item, provided
that during the permit process the application is brought back to the Planning Corrunission for
parking issue considerations.
Cm. Schaub wanted to 8tate for the record that Staff presented exactly what the Council wanted.
If the City were to allow garage conversions then this is the way he would want to have them
do it.
Cm. Wehrenberg corrunented that she agrees with Cm. King's concerns regarding parking.
Additionally, 8he also does not like the idea that the neighbors would not be notified about the
garage conversions.
NEW OR UNFINISHED -
9.1 Study Session; P A 04-040 and P A 05-038 Fallon Village (Fonnerly EDPO) - Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment,
Stage I Planned Development Rezone for the overall Fallon Village project, a Stage II
Development Plan, Lot Line Adjustment, Vesting Tentative Map and Development
Agreement for the northerly 486 acres of Fallon Village owned/ controlled by Braddock
and Logan.
Chair Schaub a8ked for the staff report.
a.fanrÚTI{j (:om.mir:Jl0n
(KfiJu[at" :Ml~etl~J
143
Oct;o6er 25~ 2005
"1000 í3
Authorized (4.5 600-35) staff to solicit bids for Contract 05-06, Striping and Marking
Contract;
Received (4.6 320-30) the City Treasurerl5 Investment Report for the 3m Quarter of IY
ZOO4~05, showing the City investment portfolio at $102,070,919 (market value), with
funds invested at an average yield of 3.129%;
Accepted (4.7 150-70) donation of lAsed office furniture from Dan Plute for use in the
Building Inspectors' trailer, and directed Staff to prepare a formal acknowledgement to
the donor;
Received (4.8 330-50) Financial Reports for the Month of March 2005;
Approved (4.9 670-20) Budget Change in the amount of $21244,800 fonight-of-way
acquisition costs for the Dougherty Rood Improvements - Houston Place to 1-580 CIF
proj~t;
AptmWed (4.10 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $1,607,863.71.
.
PUBLIC HEARING ~ APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROY AL OF A
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT (CUP> FOR. mE CUEu.AR. GARAGE CONVERSION
FOR. THE ~R.TY LOCATED AT 7697 CANTERBURY I..AND FA 04-036
7:52 p.m. 6.J (410-30)
Mayor Lockharl opened the public hearit1ß.
Associate Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report.
This item is an appeal by Mayor Lockhart of the decision made by the Dublin Planning
Commission on March 22, 2005 approving a CUP to convert a garage to residential
living space at 7697 Canterbury Lane.
Cm. McCormick asked. if they currently park their cars in the garage?
CITY COUNCIL MINLJTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
May 3, 2005
PAGE 185 ATTACHMENT '3
1/ ùtJ 13
Mr. Cuellar, the Applicant, stated h~ has lived here for the last 5 years is applying
because house prices are going up like crazy. The only option he has for his family is to
enlarge. Their driveway is so big they ca.n put 3 cars there without impacting the
sidewalk. He will do the building himself with some friends helping. Currently the
garage is his storage. If approved, the house will look beautiful and it will give value to
his street.
Cm Oravetz AS1c-~çI if he had thollght of adding to the Þack of his house,
Mr. Cuellar responded it will cost him $60,000, which he doesn't have.
Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing.
Mayor Lockhart clarified her reason for appealing this to the City Council is for
discussion on conversions related to should the look of homes be changed from those in
the neighborhood, What you will have is a home with 3 cars sitting on the front lawn.
Is this the look we wa.ntto approve? Does this make a difference to the Council?
Cm. McCormick stated she has noted in her neighborhood that people are building front
porches onto their homes. These neighÞOrhoods a~ well established and the
architectural integrity has long ago gone away. This makes them channing. The houses
have different character and charm. She doesn't need Dublin beige everywhere in the
City. If it is done well, it ClUJ add to the neighborhood. A similar situation was discussed_
Staff has to approve the plans and inspect during the process.
Cm. Oravetz stated he voted against the Ordinance a couple afyears ago. He agreed with
Mayor LockhArt that if you convert, you are changing that house forever. He may move
someday. He could buy it and rent out all the rooms. Where will people park? He stated
he would not support this.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated she remembered conversations about cars parl::edthere. This
does change the look of the neighÞorhood_ The plan is very nice, but her biggest concern
is spill out onto the street and what looks like a house without a place to put a car. She
stated she supported Cm. Oravetz's position opposing this.
Vrn. Zika stated. he is against all garage conversions because they cha.nge the chara.cter of
the neighborhood. This would become a 2,600 sq. ft_ home. He stated he would vote not
to let the conversion go forward.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
May 3, 201J5
PAGE 186
~z 6bÎ3
Mayor Lockhart ltI1I.de a motion to deny the appeal, but add condition that the garage
door 1ms to remain.
City Attorney Elizabeth Sjlv~ advj!1ed that if the City Council wanted to allow the
conversion, but require the garage door to stay, they should grant the appeal and modify
the conditions of approval and deny the appeal otherwise.
M1.", Baker stated recommendation B would accomplish this. He will need to add a
window so some provision would be necessary for egress standards.
Building Official Gregory Shreeve stated the garage door would not be strong enough to
su.pport the window so it would be put on either side.
Cm. Hildenbrand clarified they are just talking llbout aesthetics tonight.
It would be necessary to change the conditions of approval to require the garage door to
remam.
Mayor Lockhart made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand, to deny the
appeal, but add condition that the garage door has to remain (Option B). This motion
was defeated due to NO votes cast by Cm. McCormick, Cm. Oravetz, and Vm. Zika.
Vrn. Zika made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Oravetz, to reverse the Planning
Commission's decision, thereby denying the CUP (Option C), This motion was defeated
due to NO votes cast by Cm. McCormick, Cm. Hildenbrand. and Mayor Lockhart.
Cm. McCormick made. a motion to deny the appeal (Option A). This motion received NO
second.
City Attorney Silver advised the Council that if there is no decision, then the Planning
Comrtússion's decision approving the CUP remains in effect. This can be continued for
75 days.
Mayor Lockharlmade a motion to continue the item for Staff to work with the applica.tlt.
Ms. Silver adv1"ed that the City Council hM to continue to the next meeting or take
action. This is the time for the City Council to ask questions. They.are acting in a quasi-
judicial manner.
Mayor LoçktJarl reopened the public hearins,
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
May 3. 2005
PAGE 187
13 ùb í::>
Mr. Cuellar asked if he builds a room on the back, will this be okay? If he is to spend
money, he does it wen, or he doesn't do it. He asked. about the house on Amador Valley
Boulevard which has been totally changed and stated this is not fair. An the houses on
his street look different. He stated he will wait two years, save mOney and come back.
City Manager Ambrose clarified thatthe City Council is not in a position to approve
tonight whether or not he can build an addition in the back.
Cm. Hildenbrand stated cars are not just a problem in this area, but all over town.
People don't use. their garages for parking caI's.
M1i.yor Lockhart closed the public hearing_
On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded Cm. Oravetz, and by majority vote, the Council
adopted (Attachment 2 - Option C)
RESOLUTION NO. 67 - 05
REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AND DENYING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF A GARAGE
TO RESIDENTIAL LIVING SPACE FOR THE PROPERTY AT
7697 CANTERBURY LANE (APN 941-0176-019) PA 04-036
Cm. Hildenbrand and Cm. McCormick voted in opposition to the motion.
..
PUBUC HEARING
CONDOldJ;NIjJ.M CONV£RSION ORDINANCE FA ()4~044
8:25 p.m. 6.2 (430-20)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Associate Planner J eft Baker presented the Staff Report.
This is the second readi11g of a proposed Ordinance which would regulate th~ conversion
of existing :residential apartment units held in single ownership to for-sale
condominiums.
CITY COUNCIL MINl1TES
VOLUME 24
REGULAR MEETING
May 3. 20QS
PAGE 188